
Ecuador acknowledges it has "temporarily restricted" Assange's communications - aburan28
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b642c/wikileaks-assanges-internet-link-severed-state-actor
======
jonah
Official statement: [http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-
el-ca...](http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-caso-
julian-assange-2/)

Google Translate:

"Ecuador granted political asylum to Julian Assange in 2012 on the basis of
their legitimate fears of political persecution because of his journalistic
activities as editor of WikiLeaks.

"In recent weeks, WikiLeaks has published a large number of documents which
have an impact on the election campaign in the United States. The decision to
make public such information is the sole responsibility of the Wikileaks
organization.

"The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the
affairs of other countries, it does not interfere in electoral processes in
progress or support a candidate in particular.

"In that sense, Ecuador, in exercise of its sovereign right, has temporarily
restricted access to part of its communications system in its embassy in the
UK.

"This temporary restriction does not prevent the WikiLeaks organization to
carry out his journalistic activities.

"Ecuador, consistent with its tradition of defending human rights, especially
with the victims of political persecution reaffirms granted asylum to Julian
Assange and reiterates its intention to safeguard their lives and physical
integrity until you can move to a safe place.

"Ecuador's foreign policy responds only to sovereign decisions and not yield
to pressure from other states."

~~~
TravelTechGuy
I applaud the Ecuadorian government's attempt to at least distance themselves
from this latest attempt by Wikileaks to influence our democratic process.

While in the past I viewed WL as a crucial part of openness and democracy, I'm
very suspicious of their current sources, and their intentions. Not to mention
Assange's personal interests (he expressed hatred towards Hillary - wonder
what he thinks of Trump).

>"The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the
affairs of other countries".

A not so subtle hint to the fact that our country does not. For years we've
meddled in the elections of countries around the world - directly and
indirectly. We are still doing it in some parts, overtly supporting regimes
that we like, and covertly derailing potential candidates who we assume will
not play by our rules.

~~~
contingencies
_I applaud the Ecuadorian government 's attempt to at least distance
themselves from this latest attempt by Wikileaks to influence our democratic
process._

How can you say that with a straight face? Legal SuperPACs, campaign
contributions, lobbying groups, the home of commercial 'PR' (propaganda) and
the world's most highly litigious society. You guys are the least democratic
of any self-titled democracy today. Wikileaks publishes information that
enables people to make informed decisions. This is the original purpose of
democracy. Chalk and cheese?

I also wonder also how you can say "Wikileaks is meddling in US political
process" while admitting the US has made a global habit of meddling in others'
affairs (including: direct political coup, arming rebel groups, placing
puppets in power, supplying torture equipment and training, etc.). It makes no
sense.

~~~
bogomipz
>"How can you say that with a straight face? Legal SuperPACs, campaign
contributions, lobbying groups, the home of commercial 'PR' (propaganda) and
the world's most highly litigious society. You guys are the least democratic
of any self-titled democracy today."

Oh really? Do you know the definition of a democracy? A democracy is simply a
form of government that gives power to the people. It comes from Greek words
"demos" meaning "the people" and "kratia" meaning power or authority. A
democracy doesn't specify which people or even specifically what powers. It
also doesn't say anything about about money or influence. Now is there too
much money in US politics? Of course. Does extreme partisanship hinder
progress? Absolutely. But none of these things mean that the US does not have
a democracy. There might not always be a great choice of candidates but U.S
citizens choose which least rotten of the bunch gets to represent them. No
question about it. So yes that power is vested in the citizens. To state that
the US is the least democratic of any democracy today is just absurd. So
according to your statement the US lags behind Russia, Nigeria and Democratic
Republic of Congo?

I think its odd that the OP simply saying he applauds the Ecuadorians efforts
to distance themselves from Wikileaks elicited such a total condemnation from
you.

~~~
fredsir
Watching the events from Europe, the thing about USA and democracy is that
it's blatantly obvious how bad things are, all while your media and
governments are acting like everything is great and USA is the greatest
country in the world. Nobody acts like things are great in Russia, Nigeria, or
Congo.

USA is living a lie that hurts almost all its citizens on a daily basis, and
there is nothing the people can do. USA might be a democracy but there is no
power in the hands of the people anymore. The choice of continuing this
corrupt, broken institution is what Hillary represents. Massive change that
might break all kinds of stuff world wide because of the crazy that he is, is
what Trump represents. I don't think anybody but the people benefitting
directly want those two as candidates, but there is nothing anybody can do
about it. The people of USA just have to take it, all while being lied to by
the very people that should be working for them but obviously aren't: the
media and the government.

Yeah, worst democracy in the world is probably on point, in my opinion.

~~~
Amezarak
> I don't think anybody but the people benefitting directly want those two as
> candidates, but there is nothing anybody can do about it.

Both Clinton and Trump were nominated as Presidential candidates by the voting
public through a democratic process. Voters will choose among Trump, Clinton,
Stein, Johnson, and other candidates in the Presidential election on November
8th. If voters don't want to elect Trump or Clinton, they have other
candidates they can vote for. The reality is that most people _want_ either
Trump or Clinton as President.

Can you remind me how Prime Ministers are chosen in your country? What voters
choose them to be PM? How important is your national government relative to
the national government in the US, domestically speaking? Are state and
provincial governments as powerful as they are in the US? Do you elect all
your state and local offices, like we do in the US?

The US has many problems, but "insufficiently democratic" is not one of them.

~~~
Chestofdraw
> The reality is that most people want either Trump or Clinton

Is that actually the reality? My impression is that most people _do not_ want
either Trump nor Clinton but they want one a lot less than the other so
they'll vote against that candidate rather than voting for one.

~~~
fredsir
I couldn't have said it better.

Nobody is choosing either Trump or Clinton. They are voting for the
alternative against either Trump or Clinton.

------
makomk
Announced right when it's most effective in distracting from the really
dubious pedo allegation against Assange - which itself happened right when he
was unable to respond due to his internet connection being cut - imploding
under the most basic journalistic investigation, and from the way it spread
like wildfire amongst Clinton supporters despite absolutely reeking:
[https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-
story-o...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-of-how-
a-tiny-online-dating-site-accused-j)

I mean, I guess it's probably not all intentional, but the timing of events
sure does hate the guy right now.

~~~
Taek
The Clinton campaign has been really effective with timing related to Assange
events. The Trump sexual video was released immediately following a wiki leaks
dump.

It's pretty clear that they are happy to play dirty, and have planned out
moves like these.

~~~
FireBeyond
Is it playing dirty to use "strategically timed leaks" to combat
"strategically timed leaks" now?

What a curious double standard you have.

~~~
Taek
I never said that Assange wasn't playing dirty.

------
mey
Not sure how I feel about this.

I'm against censorship but he basically set himself up at the perpetual mercy
of Ecuador. Their house, their rules.

Conversely in passive observation, wikileaks has had a pretty clear agenda in
timing, materials and communications over the last few months.

~~~
contingencies
Wikileaks can only work with the material they have been given and have always
tried to maximize it's impact as part of their enabling role as a publisher. I
don't see how in this regard temporal optimization differs from timed release,
proxy release or fundamental analysis (such as statistics), all of which they
have offered in the past. As for 'agenda', this is like saying the
organization has a 'purpose' \- to quote their about page: "the analysis and
_publication_ of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official
materials involving war, spying and _corruption_ ".

~~~
HillRat
There is the troubling fact that emails tracing the flow of funds from Syria
to Russian banks vanished from the "Syrian files" email dump sent by hackers
to WikiLeaks, despite the fact that the hackers considered those the Crown
Jewels of their data exfil.

WL has never explained why they didn't publish those emails, though they did
blame the press for reporting what they called Hillary Clinton's "neo-
McCarthyist conpiracy theories," which was ... somewhat nonresponsive to the
allegation.

~~~
contingencies
{{citation-needed}} ... [http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-
syria-r...](http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-
bank-2-billion/) claims the source of this rumour is "leaked US court
documents" of "Manhattan" that are "sealed" (as if they were authoritative on
information in the possession of hackers and their thoughts) ... the article's
two authors asked Wikileaks for comment, Wikileaks said this "is speculation
and it is false". The journalists in question work for a b-grade US populist
rag, and the US routinely monitors _all_ international financial transactions
via the SWIFT system, and has done so since _at least_ 2001 (official
letterhead response of the EU to a FOIA I made), as well as credit/debit card
systems, Western Union, etc. Given this background, draw your own conclusions.

------
PJDK
Something that people aren't commenting much on but feels sort of significant
to me is the way this information was released.

The initial tweet talked ambiguously about some "State Actor" cutting off
internet. Although true, that seems designed to spark off an storm of
conspiracy theories when the truth is quite banal.

~~~
anotheryou
Well probably it was through pressure from another state actor, just no fancy
hacking involved.

But yeah, just get that dude a mobile internet usb-stick. I would think twice
before sharing my wifi with Assange, too.

------
whyenot
I had a lot more sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks before the recent releases
that seem to have been timed to influence the US elections.

Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape
allegations? Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus,
but there are also two victims who deserve some closure.

~~~
jahewson
Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape
allegations?

It hasn't. The Swedish prosecutors have been the ones refusing to hold the
interview, not Assange.

~~~
res0nat0r
What is the reasoning? They aren't going to fly to Ecuador to interview
someone they consider a flight from justice?

~~~
ejstronge
He's currently in England, not Ecuador

~~~
res0nat0r
Er, the Ecuadorian embassy, but that doesn't alter the point of my question...

~~~
ryanlol
He's not fled justice in Sweden either, but the UK.

------
TorKlingberg
So we had a 1100+ comments thread full of conspiracy theories for, this?

~~~
tombone12
Yes, Assange and wikileaks have built a strong mythos around themselves, in
part based on true events.

------
chx
The USA embassy didn't allow Mindszenthy to send any mail they didn't read. As
far as I am aware phone calls were absolutely not allowed.

------
ldjb
Slightly expanded article:
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b6...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b642c/wikileaks-
assanges-internet-link-severed-state-actor)

~~~
dang
Thanks. We've switched to that from
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4e99014f395c40f3854542a5ae619...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4e99014f395c40f3854542a5ae6190f2/ecuador-
acknowledges-it-has-temporarily-restricted).

------
ajman
I just don't get why these people think that 'silencing' Assange would stop
the leaks from happening, don't they (WL) have an algorithm running the dumps,
and people ready to take the helm if he died?

~~~
anotheryou
It certainly doesn't change a thing and they are prepared and decentralized
enough to avoid many attacks, but in general single persons can be very
important to organizations and wikileaks is not that big.

------
beedogs
I'm okay with this.

~~~
thingexplainer
I'd love to hear more about why.

~~~
jcmoscon
he is a democrat.

~~~
beedogs
no, but you are an idiot.

