
Ecuador will hand over Julian Assange to the UK - sosa2k
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/ecuador-will-imminently-withdraw-asylum-for-julian-assange-and-hand-him-over-to-the-uk-what-comes-next/
======
blhack
What I've wanted for Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and
if Obama would have done it before leaving office, it would have earned him
infinite respect:

Try them, possibly even find them guilty of something, but also award them
with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

What these people have done is probably illegal, but it is unquestionably
about the most American, patriotic act you could commit. Speaking out against
perceived tyranny with no regard for your own wellbeing, is an incredible act.

It makes me profoundly sad how the world (or at least my world, mostly far
left, liberal, educated, etc.) has turned so hard against Julian Assange. He's
a hero in every sense of the word.

~~~
briandear
Just a curiousity, is “far left” and “liberal” even related? Seems like the
far left and far right are two sides to the same totalitarian coin. Liberal
implies a respect for the freedom of individuals while “far left” puts the
collective over the rights of the individual. The word liberal has lost its
meaning. The far left (and far right) is incompatible with freedom. Cases in
point: Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union. The far left closer to fascism than
liberalism.

[http://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/fascism-is-far-
left...](http://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/fascism-is-far-left-not-far-
right-on-political-spectrum/)

~~~
SyneRyder
You might like the website The Political Compass, a quiz/self-test where
authoritarian / libertarian are on a separate axis from the typical left /
right of economic planning. It at least shows the lack of nuance in trying to
reduce all politics to a single "left & right" dimension - and that by doing
so, we ignore ways where both "sides" may actually share common views.

[https://www.politicalcompass.org/](https://www.politicalcompass.org/)

~~~
Cyphase
Probably inspired by the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Q...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz)

[https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/](https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/)

------
tptacek
This is less a news story than a coat rack Greenwald uses to hang a bunch of
loosely-related political arguments he wants to make:

* That Ecuador under Moreno is subservient to western powers, this according in part to Correa, who ran the previous Ecuadorian administration, which was widely considered one of the most corrupt in the western hemisphere (I have no idea if Moreno's was as well). OK? None of us are equipped to litigate the question of whether Ecuador is well-governed, and I doubt Greenwald is either.

* That the UK might (based on no evidence presented in this article) be wrangling to convict Assange under contempt statutes, because, I don't know, the UK is super corrupt and out to get Assange.

* That the US almost surely plans on prosecuting Assange because, despite the fact that US law makes it pretty difficult to prosecute Assange and despite the fact that it is extremely unlikely the UK or any EU country would extradite him, there are politicians in the US that really don't like him. OK? And?

The one morsel of "news" in this is the intimation that Moreno is about to
revoke Assange's asylum. Of course, people paying attention have known this
was coming for months. Greenwald has an unnamed source saying the details are
being finalized now. Great.

The rest of this is basically a very... impassioned... op-ed piece. Infowars
does this stuff better, or, at least, more entertainingly.

~~~
panarky
Your comment is less an incisive analysis of the article than a coat rack to
hang a bunch of loosely-related ad hominem attacks on the author along with
unsubstantiated and unbelievable attempts to cast doubt on the article's
thesis.

Namely that Assange is a political prisoner, likely to be transferred from
eight years of effective imprisonment in the embassy to an actual prison, and
to remain imprisoned for a long time, all without being charged of any serious
crime.

~~~
uxp
While I agree in theory to your argument that Assange has been "Imprisoned"
for ~8 years, the fact remains that, during time of the accusation of rape or
assault in Sweden through today, he has maintained his innocence in the matter
and if he had turned himself in he would have likely spent less time awaiting
trial and proceeding through the trial than he did during his voluntary
imprisonment in the embassy.

He turned an every day occurrence into a spectacle that gave him the
perception of guilt.

Coupled with the fact that the indictment last week from Mueller's team all
but implicates WikiLeaks as the distribution pawn for much of the 2016
election season's stolen emails, if he's so afraid of being extradited to the
USA, why is he still poking at the US Government with sticks? If I don't get
along with my neighbor, and my neighbor has the capability of ruining my life
forever (whether that is justified or not is not the argument), I don't take
every opportunity I have to take a shit on his lawn. Established journalistic
publications like the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal
take care when publishing classified materials that have been leaked to them
by redacting irrelevant information and personal details. WikiLeaks seems to
want to jump on that same bandwagon, but they aren't paying the fare by
cleaning out information that is irrelevant to the story they want to push.
There have been numerous instances of personal details like Social Security
Numbers, Personal phone numbers, and street addresses being retained in the
documents they release. By not paying the price to be a publisher of
information in the public's best interests, it's not surprising that many in
the Justice Department don't view what they do to be covered under the 1st
Amendment and are not protected from certain laws.

------
jewbacca
I've always considered this bit of writing from 2006 to be Assange's (and
Wikileaks') central thesis:

\----

"The non linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance

[...]

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear
and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in
minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in
cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline
resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands
adaption."

[https://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936id_/http://iq.org:...](https://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936id_/http://iq.org:80/#Thenonlineareffectsofleaksonunjustsystemsofgovernance)

[https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf](https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-
conspiracies.pdf)

\----

I still believe that this will bear out in the long-run, and _has_ already
begun to bear out in smaller-scale cases, but it is becoming apparent that in
many cases this is like a "the market can stay irrational longer than you can
stay solvent" situation, and has really barely begun.

As for Assange personally, I still kinda believe in him, though I recognize
that is on shakier ground than it may once have been. After 8 uninterrupted
years of however an honest and empathetic person might describe his
conditions, I would not be surprised, nor would I particularly fault him for
losing it a bit, and letting his personal situation (... being fucking
_personally_ targeted for destruction by an unfathomably powerful global-scale
system of secretive injustice) compromise his personal pretence towards the
objective neutrality on which his thesis's large-scale fruition is predicated.

~~~
Theodores
John Young from Cryptome helped Wikileaks get started but then decided to
distance himself from Assange and co.

Why was this?

[https://www.cnet.com/news/wikileaks-estranged-co-founder-
bec...](https://www.cnet.com/news/wikileaks-estranged-co-founder-becomes-a-
critic-q-a/)

Fundamentally the difference was that Wikileaks was all about making money, to
pay for Assange and co to go about their special way, living life as kings in
their own special world. Plenty of charities operate this way but John Young
thought it would be more of a collection of people working together on the
task in hand, not a revenue generating operation.

John Young's Cryptome website costs hosting fees and, although people can
donate, this is paid for out of pocket, no vast network of fundraisers needed,
no 'bitcoin' needed, no deal with Visa/Mastercard/Paypal needed. It is down to
earth and not inflated with an Assange sized, planet sized ego.

I know people have got to eat, however, I personally found that the money
making ambitions for WikiLeaks left a bad taste in my mouth. Assange's little
difficulties with women and some of the silly things he may say are okay to
me, not everyone has a squeaky clean character but luckily most of us don't
have people sharing gossip about us with the press. But making money out of
other people by presenting a 'saintly' self on a mission to do great things
'if only the funds were available' is not how I like my freedom fighters to
roll.

Furthermore, throughout this whole saga it has always been about him. Assange
with the planet sized ego. In some ways further theatre and charades and time
in jail is what his story 'needs' for Assange to get the 'martydom' that he
'needs'. Let the spectacle begin.

~~~
geofft
> _Assange 's little difficulties with women ... not everyone has a squeaky
> clean character_

To be clear about his "little difficulties", he's been accused of
intentionally breaking a condom he was using when having sex with one woman
(both of them have stated that the condom broke) and continuing a sexual
encounter with another person while refusing to use a condom. As the article
states, he's escaped trial because he hid from Swedish authorities and they
weren't able to have the case tried in a timely fashion.

I will think it's a failure of our justice system if Assange is prosecuted in
the US for leaking information (especially if, as described by the article,
it's by Sessions et al. as a precursor for a leaking crackdown) and _not_
tried for the sexual assault case that he's actually been on the run from for
years - because it means that anyone who's in a similar position to Assange
can now get away with sexual assault, claim asylum for their political
activities, and have the world ignore their "difficulties with women."

~~~
thevardanian
What is the evidence that happened?

~~~
geofft
What is the evidence that these are the accusations, or what is the evidence
that the accusations are true? I obviously don't know that the accusations are
true. Swedish prosecutors think they have evidence of that. That's what I was
hoping a court case would decide. I think the government should treat him as
innocent until proven guilty, of course, like any civilized person, but like
any civilized person I also think trials should happen.

If you're interested in evidence that these are the accusations, see e.g.
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Sex-accusers-
bo...](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Sex-accusers-boasted-
about-their-conquest-of-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-
Assange/articleshow/7068149.cms) or
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Complaints_and_initial_investigation)
or [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-
sweden) or [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-
be-i...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-
interviewed-over-allegations-sexual-assault/8021186) or really a Google search
for 'assange condom'.

~~~
toyg
_> Swedish prosecutors think they have evidence of that._

 _Some_ Swedish prosecutors, rather. The accusations were originally dropped,
then picked back up by a more politically-oriented prosecutor. It was very,
very iffy from the start.

------
carlosrg
Good. His lies about the Catalonia situation were Russia Today-tier of
disinformation and fake news. It’s completely normal that an ally of Spain
doesn’t want to cooperate with that.

~~~
ryanlol
What claims did Assange make in regards to the Catalonia situation?

~~~
carlosrg
Too many tweets to listen, but some of the most egregious claims he made:

\- Spain were going to physically invade Catalonia and cause a Tiananmen
Square-like situation

\- The president of Spain wanted a "1000 year Reich" (ironic since that
president was ousted by a no-confidence vote around a month ago. Guess the
Reichs in Spain don't last long)

\- Spanish federal Police warned jihadist terrorists that Mossos were
following them (Catalonia police)

\- Spanish people routinely mob Catalonians with total impunity

\- And my "favorite" one, the one time when he said that there's 7.5 millions
of Catalonians and if they were mobilized they could oust Spanish armed
forces. So yes, basically asking for a civil war.

~~~
ryanlol
>\- Spain were going to physically invade Catalonia and cause a Tiananmen
Square-like situation

>The president of Spain wanted a "1000 year Reich"

>\- Spanish federal Police warned jihadist terrorists that Mossos were
following them (Catalonia police)

[https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/910056476814794752](https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/910056476814794752)

[https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/917691333191585792](https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/917691333191585792)

[https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/931712044662792192](https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/931712044662792192)

He's posting links, he's not the one making these claims. The jihadist story
is straight from a Spanish newspaper.

>\- And my "favorite" one, the one time when he said that there's 7.5 millions
of Catalonians and if they were mobilized they could oust Spanish armed
forces. So yes, basically asking for a civil war.

[https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/914477133195616257](https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/914477133195616257)

If this is the tweet you are referring to, I don't think that's a very honest
description. He's clearly talking about their ability to keep polling stations
running, and not calling for a civil war.

~~~
carlosrg
What difference does it makes that these are links? Is okay to publish
anything if it’s a link?

The guy lost his mind. Shame because I actually respected him before this.

~~~
ryanlol
It makes a huge difference, you attributed these claims to him. He did not
make the claims. If he's truly the person you claim him to be, it shouldn't be
very hard to find lies that actually originate from him.

Honestly, one almost gets the feeling that you're only reading the El Pais
interpretation of his tweets.

>The guy lost his mind. Shame because I actually respected him before this.

What did you respect him for? What changed? Assange has always been about
fighting the western powers. I don't see how his behavior has particularly
changed, only his portrayal.

------
shiado
Hopefully he wasn't bullshitting with those insurance files. I have been
waiting for some quality leak drama for a long long time now.

~~~
duxup
Assange and bullshitting, wouldn't be the first time... he said he had info
that was going to bring down big US banks for a while... didn't do anything.

But let's say he had some such files, release them and he has nothing.

------
onyva
True about Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Not so true about Assange. And
it’s not just the legality. He didn’t simply release documents, he
collaborated (as far as it is understood) with another country, to undermine
the governments that imposed sanctions on it for the crimes it has (still
does) committed.

~~~
dandare
> he collaborated (as far as it is understood) with another country, to
> undermine the governments that imposed sanctions on it for the crimes it has
> (still does) committed.

Can I explain? Did I miss something?

------
ninguem2
People seem to be downvoting opinions here and the discussion is all turning
so pale it's hard to read. Maybe just live with the fact that there will be
statements you don't agree with and perhaps post a comment explaining why, if
the counterpoint has not yet been made.

------
cwyers
Why does Greenwald believe that a prominent world leader in a wheelchair
attending a conference on people with disabilities is a smokescreen for this
Assange business, instead of, you know... _something he actually cares about?_

------
ibejoeb
>highly unlikely that Moreno...will obtain a guarantee that the U.K. not
extradite Assange to the U.S.

I'm not remotely convinced that Moreno had any capability to obtain such an
assurance. By what mechanism can a foreign agent nullify terms of a treaty
between two unrelated states, even if the subject were an ecuadorian national?

~~~
occamrazor
It is a standard clause in most extradition treaties: if country A extradites
person X to country B for a specific crime, country B is not allowed to to
extradite person X to a third country, or even try them for a different crime
(except crimes committed after extradition).

~~~
gsnedders
In the case of the treaties covering the European Arrest Warrants, you can be
extradited to country C with consent of country A and country B. Of course,
that means you can take things to the highest court in both countries before
anything can happen.

The response in the Assange case has always been about Sweden either violating
treaties or about the US performing an extraordinary extradition.

------
imh
Journalists love to argue that journalists should enjoy special first
amendment rights, and a central theme of OP is the government prosecuting
whistleblowers but not the media companies who publish the info. Even the most
Snowden friendly outlets seem to write like that. That seems super weird. The
exceptions should be due to public interest, not due to being a newspaper.

~~~
jumelles
In the US, whistleblowers like Snowden are able to be prosecuted because they
agreed to not disclose confidential information. The speech itself is
protected.

------
timmytokyo
Julian Assange is not "effectively imprisoned". He can leave the Ecuadorian
embassy any time he chooses. Ecuador is under no obligation to provide him
domicile.

~~~
panarky
If you spend 8 years confined to a small space, unable to travel freely due to
a well-grounded fear of physical harm, you're most definitely "effectively
imprisoned".

~~~
guitarbill
Plus, the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has also found that he is
in arbitrary detention... in 2016. The UK has conveniently ignored this breach
of human rights.

Whatever Assange did or didn't do, and whatever this media and political
spectacle is, it isn't justice.

~~~
nradov
UN working groups have no legal authority.

~~~
guitarbill
Yes, apparently. And that somehow makes it okay to ignore?

Meanwhile, the UK continues the farce, costing a disproportionate amount of
taxpayer money given the accusations.

~~~
nradov
Yes it's okay to ignore the recommendations of working groups. The UK is under
no obligation to take them seriously.

~~~
guitarbill
You already said that. Anything other than "we don't need no ethical opinions
from nobody!" to add? Like if it is actually ethical? Or a giant waste of
money?

------
AJRF
Along with this being tremendously sad due to what I perceive to be a service
provided for the privacy conscious people of the world (validation that, yes
governments were unjustly spying on people in their own country and abroad),
it makes me extra frustrated because what a waste of time and money this whole
thing was. From the US, Swedish, UK and Ecuador governments.

------
slg
I am genuinely surprised by the amount of positive comments here about
Assange. It is clear that at a bare minimum he was used as a tool by Putin to
sway politics in the US and is it seems likely he was a willing and active
participant in that plan. For people who still view Assange positively, do you
simply not care about that fact or do you just think the good outweighs the
bad?

EDIT: This comment is currently sitting at -3 points. I couldn't care less
about the points, but it shows that at least four people have found problems
with this question. Is it too much to ask that you engage in a conversation if
you think this question is ridiculous?

~~~
patient_zero
I can't downvote, but in my mind to engage with this question is to lend it
legitimacy. The debate then is unwinnable. See, if we frame our discussion on
your terms (Was he a willing conspirator with Russia and Putin or merely a
fool) then anyone with the beliefs like say, "Assange did the world some good
by releasing documents the US government didn't want released" or "Assange was
a powerful force for government transparency" then we have lost. I can't tell
you why three people downvoted you, but my best guess is your comment is
perceived as bad-faith.

Cheers

~~~
slg
How is the question illegitimate? I don't think it is controversial to say
that Wikileaks was part of Russias plan to influence US politics. (Whether
they were a unwilling or willing participant is immaterial at the moment). If
simply establishing that as a fact makes your side of the debate "lost" and
"unwinnable", maybe that means you should rethink why you fall on that side of
the debate.

~~~
patient_zero
Hey, now I've got downvotes too! My opinion is unpopular, and it was just
questioning why _other_ people downvoted you, so I retract my previous guess,
as it was clearly wrong. It turns out people just don't like things they
disagree with What can ya do? :)

My comment mostly reflects how interesting I find it that people can justify
anything they like based on their previous beliefs, cherry-picking facts that
suit what they'd _prefer_ to believe.

I am guilty of this too, we all are. I __try __to attack my own beliefs by
reading and attempting to understand other points of view, but I 'm not super-
human, I have blind spots.

One thing I'm somewhat good at is seeing how language can frame things in such
a way to make the counter-argument more difficult. Its all about perception,
because language is so imprecise.

For example, You said

>...Wikileaks was part of Russias plan to influence US politics

That is likely true! But your point could be taken to mean that Wikileaks was
complicit in this plan. It could be taken to mean a whole lot of things, and
while we're debating the veracity of _those_ things we don't even get to
debate on other things, such as the content of the leaks, and about the US
government's persistent attack on whistleblowers.

Indeed, it frames the mind in such a way as to ponder whether the US's desire
to prosecute Assange is proper given the circumstances.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I may be pretty good at picking up on the
nuances of speech but I'm piss poor at explaing myself.

~~~
slg
I see what you are saying here, but I think that is a different argument than
the one you made in the first comment. My question still remains, do people
who view Assange positively not care about his involvement with Russia or do
they think it is excusable because the ends justify the means? Whether Assange
was a willing participant in that involvement would likely impact people's
answers, but I don't think that unknown invalidates the question. I also don't
think the question loses legitimacy just because I might not have chosen my
words carefully enough in the setup to the question.

~~~
patient_zero
ah, and here I'll apologize for my inability to properly express myself
previously.

rather, i was trying to guess the motivations behind your downvoters, based on
my own reasoning, a hazardous proposition at best. i meant to distance myself
from any critique/judgement of your position but my own opinion was made
clear, wasn't it? oops.

you've guessed it, i don't wish to discuss your question at all, no offense. i
_believe_ it's a distraction and of little importance. This belief, though i
am confident it is a product of my incredible intellect¹, more likely comes
mostly from my distaste the US government due to the things I've read in the
leaks, and my belief that the US government would do anything to bury
wikileaks, up to and including slander and libel.

¹clearly sarcasm, for those invisible down voters

------
rgbrenner
_last April, Trump’s then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, now his Secretary of
State, delivered a deranged, rambling, highly threatening broadside against
WikiLeaks._

I watched the video linked and I wouldn't describe it as "deranged" or
"rambling". Just because the author disagrees with Pompeo does not make him
deranged. When reporters write blatantly political things like this, it really
makes me question the fairness of the rest of the article.. what else did they
mischaracterize to fit their political views?

~~~
pvg
He's not a 'reporter'.

~~~
mark212
Glenn Greenwald isn’t a reporter? I’m sure that’s news to him

~~~
blhack
I wonder if the parent is being a pedant here, and meaning to say: "Glenn
Greenwald is a journalist, not simply a reporter."

~~~
mark212
no, I wasn't being pedantic. I don't care enough about him to have any opinion
either way, just that I'm pretty sure he defines himself as a journalist.

------
mkempe
The lasting message will be that if, as a private person, you help people
reveal State Secrets of the most powerful countries on Earth --especially
including evidence of war crimes, illegal spying, and assorted abuses of
power-- you will be hounded and end up a forced recluse, tortured prisoner,
and dead. The widening use of drones is likely to provide evil politicians
with the shortcut they generally desire.

Could Assange have organized Wikileaks and gotten such impact as he did while
remaining safely anonymous? he must have known he was going to make countless
enemies in seats of extraordinary power.

[added] My own lesson from this thread is that Assange is amazingly
_polarizing_ in this forum, and there is more bile here than I have ever
witnessed in HN (almost half of the comments are greyed out at the moment).
Much of it seems driven by political inclination rather than reasoned
discussion, driven by the substrate of the government abuses of power he set
out to disrupt.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _if, as a private person, you help people reveal State Secrets of the most
> powerful countries on Earth_

Plenty of people are leaking all manner of things to the press every day. If
you decide to accept leaks, make lots of money off it, align yourself with
Russia and then fail to do any diligence on your sources or redaction of your
products, you’re doing more than just leaking.

------
wnevets
Its time to send that Russian asset to prison.

------
chvid
I will believe it when I see it.

------
MrBingley
Good. It's quite clear that WikiLeaks is in cahoots with the Russians after
the DNC hack, and their collusion with the Trump campaign to try to show their
"impartiality" is despicable. I used to have some respect for WikiLeaks, but
they are just Russian pawns. Snowden I respect, but not Assange.

------
adamnemecek
Holy shit. Why can one do?

------
severine
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo:

[https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1020727843897118723](https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1020727843897118723)

> _Interesting to see Greenwald’s continued toadying for Julian Assange here.
> 2 / There are several layers of irony here. Before getting to those let me
> say that I think it would be a big mistake for the US to try to prosecute
> him, mainly for precedent and 1st am reasons. But also because we have no
> interest in validating his martyr complex. 3/ As for the ironies, Assange
> didn’t seem ‘asylum’ over a threat of US prosecution. He was there to be
> evade prosecution for rape. The bogeyman of us prosecution was always there
> to provide a veneer of principle to the more mundane aim of not answering
> rape charges. 4/ Sweden eventually gave up on that case because they
> couldn’t get access to Assange. So big picture Assange already one. He
> leveraged his political celebrity into a get out of jail free card for rape.
> The other irony is that at that time, Assange hadn’t done anything the 5/ US
> could charge him with. It was only from his Ecuador refuge that he began
> actively conspiring against the US and U.K. governments, becoming some sort
> of tool for the Russian security services. Glenn has another story. But it
> was clear in 2016 and 2017 ... 6/ that while Ecuador was willing to grant
> him refuge (albeit from rape prosecution) they did not want him using it to
> plot against other governments which Ecuador obviously wants to maintain
> some level of good relations with 7/ As I said, it would be very ill advised
> for the US to try to extradite or prosecute Assange (at least on the basis
> of any currently known or suspected evidence). But it would be ironic
> because only the Trump admin (or rather its appointees) wld even try. 8/ And
> Assange of course did everything in his power to get Trump elected and help
> the white nationalities and racist xenophobe groups who were and are his
> biggest supporters. 9/ It’s never been clear to me whether Assange was
> always who he turned out to be or was simply a data anarchist radical who
> went down a racist/authoritarian rabbit hole because of the series of events
> which unfolded after Wikileaks was formed. 10/ My hunch was always the
> former. But it barely matters._

------
bytematic
His disinformation campaign has done incredible damage to democracies around
the world, despite his great ideas and systems.

------
wpdev_63
Anyone want to start a gofundme to smuggle assange out of ecuador? I bet there
numerous other south american countries that would take him in.

~~~
AJRF
Hes in London, do you mean to smuggle him to another embassy of a South
American state in London?

------
cft
Lenin was an appropriate name for this man.

~~~
mkempe
Why? "Lenin Moreno was once a wealthy businessman and politician. But in 1998,
he was shot in the back as gunmen stole his car from a parking lot in Quito.
He was paralyzed from the waist down. Moreno overcame intense pain and bouts
of depression to become a motivational speaker. He's written books about the
healing power of laughter." This seems to explain a lot of what he has been
doing in Ecuador, more so than his first name.

~~~
nailer
Probably because he's willing to back Spain about being called out for abuses
surrounding Catalonia, as mentioned in the article?

------
einarfd
To a lot of people Assange is a hero, and I'll grant that I liked a lot of the
early actions of Wikileak under him.

But to me, he is first and foremost someone that ran from a sexual assault
investigation and has spent the years since that trying to evade justice. I
have no regard left for the man after doing that.

Some will argue that he would not have gotten a fair hearing in Sweden, and
that they would have extradite him to the USA. My impression of the Swedish
legal system, does not line up with that. So I have to respectfully disagree
with those that think that.

~~~
ddebernardy
Then again, to his credit, he eventually met his Swedish prosecutors from the
safety of the embassy (and released the gory details a month later [1]). And
there were genuine concerns from the get go that he'd get booted across the
Atlantic had he stepped out of the embassy.

I've honestly no idea how warranted the rape claims in Sweden were - and to be
clear, I'd tend to side with the women who filed them - but you can't just
dismiss the whole thing on grounds he was escaping those charges.

In a similar situation I can't imagine anyone except the most naive idealist
would have risked the wrath of US.gov (whose budget, remember, is on the order
of magnitude of Germany's GDP) over miscellanea in Sweden (however important
to the victims) that had 'excuse for extradition to the US' written all over
it.

[1]: [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/07/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/07/julian-assange-
defies-swedish-prosecutors-by-releasing-statement)

~~~
einarfd
Sweden has a long history of being a neutral country, it spent the whole of
the cold war as that, and is still not a member of NATO. They did departure
that doctrine somewhat when they joined the European Union. But it is still
very much alive.

Extraditing Assange to the USA over a political charge would have been a huge
departure of the neutrality doctrine, I have a hard time seeing how any
Swedish government would have survived doing something so blatantly un
Swedish.

The UK on the other hand, is a country that boost it has a special
relationship with the USA, and is imo. the European country most likely to
extradite him. So it fairly weird he went there, if not getting extradited to
the USA was the goal.

~~~
dingaling
Swedish Cold War neutrality was a sham. They aligned their tactics and weapons
acquisitions with NATO standards. From the 1950s onwards they secretly
collaborated with the UK and USA on intelligence and defensive plans.

There really was no question that they were in the NATO sphere except for
formality.

Finland was more truly neutral.

