
Julian Assange's stay in London embassy untenable, says Ecuador - fmihaila
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/09/julian-assange-stay-in-london-embassy-untenable-says-ecuador
======
StringyBob
I've no idea of the truth of the original allegations, or his claims that he
was set up, but since then it's quite impressive how he's managed to change my
perception of him and wikileaks from 'champions of freedom-of-information /
free speech' to 'russian government stooge' over the last few years.

~~~
cmelbye
> It's quite impressive how he's managed to change my perception of him and
> wikileaks from 'champions of freedom-of-information / free speech' to
> 'russian government stooge' over the last few years.

I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one
responsible for that narrative, instead of them.

He had information that was seriously damaging to very powerful people, and an
audience that was ready for proof of their suspicions of
political/corporate/media corruption.

This makes him a massive target.

~~~
quink
I published my own list on reddit a while ago of the reasons.

And not a single media mention, the entire change in perception was either
through Wikileaks’ actions and words, entirely through reading mostly their
own Twitter.

Edit, found it:

Some of the reasons why I don't like WikiLeaks:

1\. Their cooperation with Roger Stone: "Well, it could be any number of
things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche
of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what
the October surprise may be."

2\. "Most of Wikileaks' critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) &
have black-rim glasses. Bizarre. Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?"

3\. Fueling the whole utterly bizarre 'spirit cooking' thing. The world's most
pre-eminent performance artist invites the brother of the campaign manager of
a presidential candidate for dinner? I'm sure that the degrees of separation
to fucking Trump are shorter than that, but no, Hillary is literally the
devil. And the whole 'election is rigged' thing with "Trump won't be allowed
to win the election"

4\. Calling out the Clinton Foundation for receiving money from Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is one of the world's wealthiest countries, and the Clinton
Foundation is one of the world's more pre-eminent charities. They have many
other donors and Saudi money goes many other places. And the Saudi royal
family numbers in the tens of thousands. Sure, some of them will be involved
with ISIS. But seriously.

5\. "WikiLeaks offers award for #LabourLeaks. Wikileaks offers £20,000 reward
for #LabourLeaks with information on how the Labour Party’s top officials have
attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader." Any chance
of a reward for information pertaining to Trump or Russia? I didn't think so.

6\. The RT/WikiLeaks connection

7\. Leaking Clinton library records. The chilling effect here is insane.

8\. Hitchens, back in 2010: "The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous
megalomaniac with a political agenda."

Almost entirely WikiLeaks themselves, posted before the election of Trump
even, no colouring in of my opinion by the lamestream media.

~~~
nailer
Something showing Labour undermining Corbyn would be more supportive of Corbyn
/ hard left.

~~~
chiaro
Since Russia's relevant interests are in destablising the Atlantic alliance
and undermining the European Union, elevating the US- and EU-critical Corbyn
over more reasonable elements in Labour is exactly what one would expect.

------
chiaro
The reasons why Ecuador took Assange in in the first place no longer make much
sense. Under Correa, there were a number of tensions with the US that were
looming large in Ecuadorian political landscape following a default in 08. By
taking in Assange, Correa could both shore up anti-US sentiments at home that
were mounting in criticism over an oil export deal, and get a bargaining chip
to boot if he needed it. With Correa out of the picture and China stepping in
and propping up exports, this makes little sense, and Assange's value as a
bargaining chip is dubious to a Trump admin.

Back when Wikileaks had a better reputation, it also helped affray Correa's
attacks on free speech at home. Now that Assange's reputation is in the
gutter, he's only a liability to Ecuador.

~~~
roenxi
It is a shame to see Assange's welfare reduced to being a bargaining chip like
this, but one imagines that he has upset too many powerful people and it is
only a matter of time for him until he is back in the justice system and
shuffled into a cell somewhere. I'll be counting him lucky if he avoids
something like Guantanamo.

It really amazes me how many people claim there are no conspiracies against
Assange though - the number of things that went from 'conspiracy theory' to
'uncomfortable fact' because of Wikileaks is obviously no evidence of
anything.

I remember what it was like watching discussion of the 5 Eyes before
Wikileaks; people were written off as cranks for opinions that turned out to
be very well rooted in fact. If Wikileaks' leadership gets shut down, we are
going to lose a very comforting level of insight into how decisions are
actually being made by people in power; and what the moral realities of
government actually are.

~~~
chiaro
Nah, most substantial leaks in recent years have avoided wikileaks and gone
straight to reputable publishers, such as the panama papers team, so as not to
be tarnished by perceptions of bias or recklessness.

------
bhickey
Why on earth haven't they removed him in a diplomatic bag or handcuffed to
their ambassador?

~~~
SEJeff
The cuffs could be removed as being attached to an ambassador doesn't give one
diplomatic immunity. Putting him in a GIANT diplomatic bag is actually an
interesting idea.

~~~
serf
>Putting him in a GIANT diplomatic bag...

Wikipedia mentions a previous time this may have happened.

"In 1964, a Moroccan-born Israeli double agent named Mordechai Ben Masoud Louk
(also known as Josef Dahan) was drugged, bound, and placed in a diplomatic
mailing crate at the Egyptian Embassy in Rome, but was rescued by Italian
authorities.[4] The box that he had been sealed into "had almost certainly
been used before for human cargo,"[5] including possibly for an Egyptian
military official who had defected to Italy several years before but then
disappeared without a trace before reappearing under Egyptian custody and
facing trial."

------
wbillingsley
It's getting a little hard to see what he's hiding from -- his asylum claim
had been based on fears that after being extradited to Sweden he would then be
sent to the US; but (according to the article) he's only facing UK charges of
breaching bail conditions, and he was in the UK, seemingly unafraid of being
whisked off to America, before all this erupted.

To my (perhaps naive) eyes, it looked like that was the "final settlement" to
defuse the situation -- the Swedish charges have been dropped but he has to
face charges for the comparatively lesser offence he plainly and publicly
committed (breaching UK bail conditions)?

I'm not sure there is much the UK can mediate on -- they plainly can't do or
say anything about whether a third country (the US) has prepared charges they
are waiting to file as it's not under their control, and in any case that
wouldn't have any bearing on the UK bail-skipping charges (as a suddenly-filed
extradition request if anything would be _more likely_ to succeed if he wasn't
facing charges in the UK)

~~~
justAnotherNET
There’s very little to meditate on.

The details are largely irrelevant. We’ll kill him the second we get the
chance. If US INTEL doesn’t get him mossad will.

He knows he’s not long for this world, and it’s frankly very sad that this is
happening at all.

------
tristanb
Or you know, he could let the justice system run its course.

~~~
namelost
While I think Assange has a good case against an extradition to the US, the
chances of him successfully fighting it are not 100% and if I were in his
shoes I would not risk it.

~~~
jcranmer
The extradition request that the US never filed?

(That's the part I never understood... why would there be a need to spirit
Assange from a Five Eyes country and very close ally of the US to one that is
not before springing a surprise extradition?)

~~~
Lazare
As a bonus, under EU law, once Assange was extradited from Sweden to the UK,
he couldn't then be re-extradited to the US without the permission of both
Sweden _and_ the UK (as per Article 28 of the 2002 EU Council Framework
Decision (2002/584/JHA). So the options are:

1\. The UK will not assent to to Assange's extradition to the US, so
extraditing him to Sweden will protect him from extradition.

2\. The UK will assent to Assange's extradition, but for mysterious reasons,
they didn't just hand him over, when he was _in their custody_. Despite their
status as a close ally of the US, and their long standing history of handing
over anyone the US asks for, no questions asked (Gary McKinnon, Richard
O'Dwyer, the NatWest Three, and many more).

Plus, neither the UK nor Sweden can legally extradite him to the US without a
binding assurance that the death penalty will not be sought, so...yeah. The
more you think about it, the less sense extradition makes as an explanation
for the Swedish problems.

If extradition was going to happen, it would have happened when Assange was in
British custody (and it didn't) _or_ it would happen after Assange left the EU
and was in a more pliant jurisdiction (ie, not Sweden).

~~~
gpm
> he couldn't then be re-extradited to the US without the permission of both
> Sweden and the UK (as per Article 28 of the 2002 EU Council Framework
> Decision (2002/584/JHA).

That's a very good point that I hadn't seen made before.

> neither the UK nor Sweden can legally extradite him to the US without a
> binding assurance that the death penalty will not be sought

I'm not sure that "life in jail" (particularly an american jail) is much
preferable... The US has been known to give those assurances.

------
neo4sure
Time to introduce Assange to Muller.

