
Wikileaks' Assange says Ecuador seeking to end his asylum - 0xmohit
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-assange-asylum/wikileaks-assange-says-ecuador-seeking-to-end-his-asylum-idUSKCN1N32AD
======
cstejerean
So he’s suing the government of Ecuador because of “new rules, which require
him to pay for medical bills, phone calls and clean up after his pet cat”. I
don’t know, those rules sound pretty reasonable to me. Why wasn’t he cleaning
up after his pet cat in the first place?

And that’s the evidence that they are trying to kick him out? Suing to
challenge these rules certainly won’t help with the government’s good will.

~~~
icebraining
Did you read the actual memo? Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from
doing any activities that might be considered political.

To me, reading the various restrictions, it seems pretty obvious that they're
designed to give them as excuse to kick him out, and the lawsuit is just a way
to buy some time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from doing any activities that
> might be considered political.

No, he can participate in Ecuadorian politics all he wants, it merely
prohibits him from interfering in other State’s politics; such interference
violates international law when conducted from a diplomatic outpost, and
Ecuador is obliged by international law to prevent it.

~~~
stale2002
Umm, excuse me, but your post here sounds political.

By doing so, you are interfering in other State's politics.

Perhaps you should be arrested for this political post.

~~~
ascorbic
That makes total sense, assuming dragonwriter is posting it from a diplomatic
post. If not, then I'm not sure what your point is.

~~~
stale2002
Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an
embassy to engage in speech?

Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous
it is to criminalize political speech?

This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a
single thing that is _more_ important to protect than political speech. It is
quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you
don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an
> embassy to engage in speech?

Speech directed at interfering in the politics of th receiving country (or, to
a lesser extent, third countries), yes.

And it's not just my or ascorbic’s idea, it's fundamental to the entire
premise of _permitting_ the special privileges associated with embassies, and
incorporated into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

(Non-diplomatic personnel residing _in_ an embassy for an extended period of
time is itself something of a hack not really envisioned by the Convention.)

> Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political
> speech?

Not being allowed to remain in embassy is not a criminal sanction.

~~~
stale2002
Imagine if the US started deporting Saudi Arabian persecuted journalists back
to Saudia Arabia, if those journalists criticized Canada. (And then Saudia
proceeded to murder those asylum deportees. )

This is basically the same exact situation. Just because the US didnt murder
the deported asylum seekers, it is still an extreme attack on free speech to
deport them, to be murdered by another country, because they criticizing
Canada.

------
tyingq
Filing a lawsuit against the people providing your asylum probably wasn't
wise. Especially given the imposed conditions seemed reasonable (pay your own
medical bills, pick up after your cat, etc).

------
macspoofing
After the crap he pulled by coordinating with the Russians to mess with the
last elections, I'm surprised Ecuador is still providing asylum to him.

~~~
starik36
Where is your proof that he coordinated anything with the Russians? From what
I can see, he publishes leaks which happen to be true.

~~~
ascorbic
He publishes leaks of documents provided to him by the Russians.

~~~
starik36
Regardless of who provides them, he published them and they happened to be
true. Other intel agencies are free to leak as they please.

But don't paint Assange as anything other than a person who publishes the
truth. Unless you have the proof that it isn't.

~~~
macspoofing
>But don't paint Assange as anything other than a person who publishes the
truth.

But he isn't that. Even in the most charitable interpretation you have to
admit that both Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases,
usually for political goals.

In the last few years, they've also been shown to coordinate with Russian
intelligence to the point where they are see as either a front, or a willing
patsy. This is the conclusion that multiple western intelligence agencies come
to, including American, British, French, Dutch and German.

Wikipedia has a good write-up:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russian_influence)

At this point, this doofus has no credibility.

~~~
starik36
> his is the conclusion that multiple western intelligence agencies come to,
> including American, British, French, Dutch and German

Well, isn't that a bit self serving.

> Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases, usually for
> political goals.

As far as I've seen they curate so that people don't get in harm's way (see
Bradley Manning's dump). They do time their release to get the biggest bang
for the buck. I don't even understand why that's a criticism. Products from
apple/google/samsung are released in time for xmas to get the biggest
reception. NYT doesn't publish scoop on Nov 7th - they do it before the
election. You cannot be serious with this criticism. As far as editorializing,
I've seen very minimal amount of that (namely Collateral Murder data dump),
but even with that the entire video was released, so you could make up your
own mind.

> this doofus has no credibility

Disagree. His credibility will continue to be high as long as what he
publishes is the truth.

------
santiagoIT
"The new president of Ecuador is not the strong and good man than his
predecessor was." That comment really, really bothers me, even though I am no
supporter of the new president. Assange was granted assylum by Correa, the
previous president, a populist, a big ally of Chavez/Maduro. Granting asylum
to Assange was a great international PR move for him. It made Correa seem like
a supporter of freedom of speach/press. While he was in power there was no
freedom of press/speach here in Ecuador. Today several of his top officials
are in prison or have fled the country. Correa himself is wanted for the
attempted kidnapping of an ecuadorian opposition leader in Colombia. The only
reason this came to light is because the colombian police was able to capture
the kidnappers during the attempted kidnapping. It turns out the kidnappers
were all government officials... Many similarities to the Kagashogi story.
Anyhow I truly wonder if Assange has the slightest idea of what type of
'leader' he received assylum from.... It is so ironic.... Something like
Wikileaks would have been never, ever seen the light of day during Correa's
regime here in Ecuador.

------
tfolbrecht
Everyone saying not to sue your asylum host, please consider, there's aren't
too many way to interface with something as nebulous as a government and its
law.

Talking to handlers only gets you so far. When your livelihood is at stake,
and you want guarantees, you have to use the correct channel. They're not
attacking the government. They're asking for clarification.

------
detcader
I haven't read much in detail on this, but it seems to me like an
unintentional stress test for asylum seeker accommodations. Doesn't really
matter how you consider Assange as a person. If you agree his claims for
asylum are valid, he should be accommodated like anyone else, not just ignored
as an exceptional case because he's showed jerk qualities, made serious
journalistic gaffs, and the most powerful governments all hate him.

By the way, Ecuador’s ex-president Rafael Correa called the treatment of
Julian Assange as "basically torture"

~~~
ilikehurdles
What U.S. charges is he seeking asylum from? Honest question.

~~~
boomboomsubban
A bill was passed labeling Wikileaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service
often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such." Though I don't
think there is a public warrant for his arrest, they likely do have some
sealed charges.

~~~
brokenmachine
I find it alarming that sealed charges are even a thing.

Any links to famous cases, or is it all secret squirrel that we can't be
trusted to know about?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Any links to famous cases, or is it all secret squirrel that we can't be
> trusted to know about?

It is fairly common for indictments of persons not already in custody to be
sealed initially if there may be issues with effecting arrest, and sometimes
for other reasons (e.g., to avoid compromising parallel investigations). The
grand jury process is intended to enforce probable cause requirements, not to
provide notice to the accused so that they might better flee arrest.

Several of the indictments by the Special Counsel’s office, for some famous
examples, were originally sealed.

------
panda427
I doubt he goes to the US. I feel Russia will offer asylum.

~~~
13415
And how would he get from the Ecuadorian embassy in London to Russia?

~~~
the_watcher
I'm not 100% sure on how diplomatic immunity works here, but couldn't Russia
send a diplomat in an official vehicle to the Ecuadorian embassy to pick
Assange up? I think official vehicles get the same diplomatic protections of
an embassy, so as long as he enters and exits the car inside embassy walls, he
should be ok, right? Or does diplomatic immunity end entirely at the embassy
walls?

~~~
bcOpus
The Russian diplomat would have immunity, the car is not a magic “immunity”
force bubble for the occupants. Unless they grind him up and stick his remains
in a diplomatic pouch, he’s gettable outside of an embassy. Diplomatic
immunity doesn’t mean the police can’t pull you over and search you, it just
means the diplomats in question can’t face criminal penalties as a result of
what’s found.

~~~
rsync
"... the car is not a magic “immunity” force bubble ..."

No, but a diplomatic packet _is_.

Just saying.

~~~
ascorbic
It's the other way around. Diplomatic vehicles _do_ provide the same
protection as an embassy. A diplomatic bag, however, does not cover people, so
if he was found to be inside one he could be arrested.

------
rurban
... and hand him over to the United States.

The most important part. Not entirely unexpected, since the US backed
candidate won the elections, and latin america is again almost socialism free.
As in the good old 70ies. Let's see if they hack him to pieces as their dear
friends do or just torture him for 90 years for exposing the US foreign
policies.

~~~
scardine
The parent is pretty cynical and sarcastic but unfortunately I can't say it is
far from the truth.

