

Ecuador offers WikiLeak's founder Assange residency, no questions asked  - zalew
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ecuador+offers+WikiLeak+founder+Assange+residency+questions+asked/3902251/story.html

======
huherto
I doubt Assange would really consider it. In my opinion Ecuador is just trying
to appear brave against the U.S. without really doing anything. That pays a
lot in the internal politics in Latin America.

~~~
proles
considering that the current president at one time shut down tv stations and
radio stations serving the opposition, this is one of those offers you just
pass on.
[http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CPJ,,ECU,,48a57540c,0...](http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CPJ,,ECU,,48a57540c,0.html)

------
bradleyland
What happens when he releases information that is sensitive to Ecuador's
interests?

~~~
kno
Ecuador is not known for its law abiding practices, it will not be smart for
Mr Asange to live there. It will be easy to the government of Ecuador or
anyone with some power to get him in shit trouble down there.

~~~
Leptosiphon
_Ecuador is not known for its law abiding practices_

I don't think that's a very accurate characterization. While Ecuador does
currently have a volatile government, the country is democratic, with
relatively fair elections and reasonably comprehensive civil rights. It's not
the US, or even Costa Rica, but Ecuador is also not some corrupt banana
republic.

------
redthrowaway
Interesting. Ecuador's current government is quite leftist, and very friendly
with Chavez, despite close ties to the US. There used to be a huge US naval
base in Manta, although it was closed when I was there this summer.

While Internet coverage is spotty enough to disuade permanent residence for
someone like Assange, I could see him trying to get some support in South
American countries. He's helped by two things: The Internet culture there is
still very Wild West, 1998-style, and they absolutely _despise_ the US (with
good reason). In fact, the one constant in South America is how much they hate
the US, although attitudes toward individual Americans varied.

~~~
rbanffy
> In fact, the one constant in South America is how much they hate the US

I am not sure where you have been or what you have experienced, but I wouldn't
call it a constant. I never noticed this widespread hatred towards the US you
mention in Brazil, Argentina or Chile. I understand most of the northern Latin
America may harbor strong negative feelings towards the US, but I can tell you
Brazilians really don't care that much.

Besides that, it's really childish to hate a country.

~~~
redthrowaway
Sorry, you're correct. I was inaccurate with my claim. The antipathy towards
the US is much stronger in Central America and the Andean regions (Bolivia,
Peru, Ecuador, etc)

As for being childish, the US has done a whole lot to earn that enmity. I'd
recommend reading _Open veins of Latin America_ , by Eduardo Galeano. It's a
difficult read, due in no small part to the author's support of the Cuban
Revolution and Castro's government. It helps, however, to recognize that the
book was written in 1971, long before it became apparent that the Cuban
experiment with Communism had some serious humanitarian costs, despite its
successes. At the time, Cuba was the only real counterpoint to American
economic imperialism in Latin America, so it's easy to see why he would offer
such strong support for that regime.

Despite that, the book is meticulously researched and cited, and many of the
events it details are frankly despicable. It's also by no means an attack on
the US, as it covers 500 years of history since the Spanish invasion of the
continent. It really is a good read.

~~~
masklinn
> As for being childish, the US has done a whole lot to earn that enmity.

That's quite an understatement.

~~~
rbanffy
Some people have done a lot, sometimes with government support, but those are
a tiny minority when compared to the people they represented.

You shouldn't judge a people by the actions of their leaders.

~~~
rdtsc
You should judge a people if they fancy themsevles a democracy (especially if
they think their democracy is so good it deserves to be "exported" to other
countries!)

~~~
sigstoat
and should you judge the people if they fancy themselves a federal republic?

~~~
rdtsc
I see what you are saying. Technically we are a federal republic but that
doesn't matter in this particular argument. We (US) are boasting at being a
democracy to the rest of the world. In the propaganda domain we are a
democracy. Our citizens have the potential of affecting the political
establishmnt through voting.

This comes in constrast to say North Korea, China or Lybia. If their
government does something outrageous, one can blame the people to some extent,
but they should also get plenty of slack since standing up and otherthrowing
the leadership would take a lot lives, blood, and suffering. It is not just a
walk to the voting booth.

In general one can argue that the people of a country should be the
responsability for their government's action in proportion to their ability to
influence that government's actions.

~~~
rbarooah
It's only one walk to the voting booth if there's an alternative available to
vote for. Significant changes in US politics have cost lives, blood, and
suffering.

~~~
rdtsc
The first step is for the majority to recognize the dysfunction of our
democracy. People have to realize that self-censorship and self-imposed
oppression is keeping them down.

As long as the large majority are drinking the kool-aid they will just end up
being manipulated powerful elites and they will vote against their own
interests.

On the other hand, in US most people still have access to the voting booth,
and to alternative media channels via the internet.

Aside from being added to various shadow 'watchlists' most American can
(still!) join an activist group or can try to contant their elected official
without a fear of imprisonment, torture and death.

But in more general terms, I was referring mostly to the propaganda domain, in
which we project ourself to be a beacon of democracy. I was offering a
potential contra-propaganda point that citizens of such self-professed
democracies should be held accountable for the actions of their government.
Whether we are an actual functioning democracy is another story (I don't think
we are ...).

~~~
rbarooah
I am not sure why what a government says about its own qualities should
determine the level of responsibility its people bear for it's actions.

~~~
rdtsc
Because unlike other people, most Americans drink their own kool-aid, and most
believe the fictitious qualities that the government tells them to believe.

When we grew up in Soviet Union, we knew propaganda when we heard it or saw
it. We didn't criticize it in public, but in private we laughed at it.

I am surprised at how uncritical Americans are of their own history, political
issues, external relations, and media bias,

Most believe they have the most objective and free press and the most
democratic government system (they are even willing to export it!).

So if most feel like they live in a democracy and feel like they can vote and
their vote can really count, then they should be held responsible for the
result of their vote (or lack of).

------
egor83
On a related note, a big online library of Russian books is managed from
Ecuador (used to be hosted there as well).

They used to openly call themselves pirates, but Russian publishers couldn't
do much to the site legally due to Ecuador copyright laws. Publishers then
tried to bring the site down by DOS attacks, but didn't quite succeed.

------
wyck
Probably not the best idea.

Related video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWpgRQuXU4>

More info
[http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21310)

------
tybris
Joke all you want, it appears the tables of what constitutes a free country
have turned dramatically.

~~~
jerf
Uh, a country does not become "free" by symbolically offering one person the
privilege of freely attacking an entity it is at best ambivalent about. That's
just falling for the propaganda move hook line and sinker.

------
27182818284
I don't think Ecuador has the infrastructure to support WikiLeaks. Hosting on
a different continent seems scary in this situation where you're pissing off
governments.

~~~
jacquesm
The offer is to Assange, not to wikileaks, so no infrastructure required.

All it takes to manage wikileaks is ssh access to a bunch of servers hosted
all over the place.

~~~
27182818284
Exactly, that was the second half of my post. It doesn't seem like a normal
SSH situation when angering governments.

------
jscore
Hah, I doubt he'll go, I think he'd rather stay in Switzerland or some other
1st world country, than going to Ecuador where he's at mercy of US' interests.

~~~
ceejayoz
Most developed nations have extradition treaties with the US - and Assange has
a good chance of independently pissing them off in the future if he leaks info
on them.

Wikileaks has already leaked private bank memos, which the Swiss in particular
don't take kindly to.

Ecuador is no fan of the US, and it tends not to be a very interesting nation
from a leaking perspective. It'd be a better choice than most developed
nations.

~~~
jscore
If push comes to shove, they'll just use him as a bargaining chip for
something they want.

------
SwaroopH
Yes but he'll need a heck lot of protection.

------
dchs
It's a trap!

------
CoachRufus87
...thus making the job of finding Assange easier for the hired assassins

~~~
chadp
Sarah Palin said today that he should be hunted down like Osama bin laden.

~~~
igravious
Really? You mean with a complete and utter lack of success? Zing!

edit: you know, when someone who is cited as a possible presidential candidate
reflexively reaches for an extra-judicial solution to resolve the releasing of
state information by a foreign whistleblower then ... what? i don't know, but
it's very telling. the road back towards the rule of law is going to be long
and difficult one.

~~~
davidcuddeback
Last night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a press meeting that
Wikileaks should be labeled a terrorist organization. I find it frightening
that the government has reached a point that they will label _anyone_ they
don't like as a terrorist so that they can bypass the legal system. I didn't
realize that exposing information could be an act of terror, but Clinton would
like to have you believe so.

Edit: I did a quick Google search to find a news piece about this. The first
one I found was this:

[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/gop-rep-wikileaks-
deemed-...](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/gop-rep-wikileaks-deemed-
foreign-terrorist-organization/)

That article tells us who lobbied Clinton to label Wikileaks as terrorists,
but it also references the Pentagon Papers case, which I cited from in a
comment in another discussion about Wikileaks
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1948911>).

~~~
joevandyk
So, Clinton _did not_ say in a press meeting that Wikileaks should be labeled
a terrorist organization?

------
hugh3
Yeah, right. Mr Assange is currently having the time of his life, travelling
around the world, pretending to be on the run from authorities which don't
seem to have much interest in actually pursuing him, talking to the media a
lot and having possibly-consensual sex with hot Swedish chicks. You think he
wants to go hang out in Quito for the rest of his life?

~~~
hugh3
Wow, I sure got downmodded for that. A lot of Quitoans in the audience? I'm
sorry, I'm sure your city is a very nice place.

