Holy moly, this will be interesting!
If you're interested, here's a video of him being escorted out of the embassy --
Comments from Snowden advising journalists to cover the story with authentic facts:
It's very common practice around the world if a person's circumstances change and their original country is now safe. Likewise if Ecuador believes that there is no longer a threat to Assange they can revoke it.
Thats a stretch considering they invited the police to arrest him.
> Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.
Or that US prosecutors won't seek an extended jail term or death penalty. Not that those were likely on the table anyway.
>The indictment against Assange, issued last year in the state of Virginia, alleges that he conspired in 2010 with Manning to access classified information on Department of Defense computers. He faces up to five years in jail.
Helping to elect Trump and being an annoying guest is not something that helps people like you.
This indictment from the Meuller investigation details how GRU agents hacked the Democratic Party and coordinated with WikiLeaks (“Organization 1” in the indictment) to release the documents they obtained (using the personas “DCLeaks”, “Guccifer 2.0”).
From that PDF: Organization 1 added, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Conspirators responded, “ok . . . i see.” Organization 1 explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”
Very obvious which side he is on.
The whole thing stank of a US intelligence op.
(Also, ironically this BBC article and other outlets are having to use a video of Assange's arrest from Ruptly, a subsidiary of Russia Today, because they bought into their own narrative about his impending arrest being a construct of his own imagination so hard they didn't have any reporters outside to catch it.)
From there, linked with the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, claims of them supporting the Trump campaign came to be.
Regardless of your opinion on Trump, I’m not sure that offering up one-sided info that benefits or hurts a candidate is or should be an arrestable offense. Entire television news networks do it.
So unless they aren't looking for things to leak about Russia because of being in the cahoots with them then it's hardly an argument that because nothing is leaked about Russia they are somehow not attempting.
>retweets Russia Today and Cassandra Fairbanks
I can't believe people still defend this guy.
That’s not how that works
Which, precisely, of these categories do you think he fits under here?
That's intended to cover things like persecution solely for being a member of a political party.
i'm not even so much agreeing with what he did and full transparency, but to me all of this is clearly political.
They wouldn’t have spent this much money and resources on just anyone.
Ignoring the specifics in this case, I'm assuming you know absolutely nothing about our legal system? Jumping bail is not taken lightly in most of the world.
Of course, now we know that there's been an US warrant on JA since at least Dec 2017
If he was someone else who had a European Arrest Warrant outstanding for rape, the authorities would take it seriously. Our press are going to have a dim view of a foreign (alleged) rapist running around because the police couldn't be arsed.
Jumping bail to an embassy in Knightsbridge and talking to the media from the balcony isn't going to help them look the other way either.
If I faced extradition to the USA, I am not sure if I would trust the UK to protect me.
It's up to the Ecuadorian government to decide whether the threat of danger is legitimate or not.
(But IANAL specialized in Ecuadorian asylum law)
Of course this wouldn't be your typical extradition as he was already on UK ground, but I think it would not be unreasonable for a court to view this as an extradition.
Your information is a few hours out of date
> Does the Ecuadorian law allow for the extradition of Ecuadorian citizens
Yes, and also specifically to America, for what it's worth
> this wouldn't be your typical extradition
That's because it wouldn't be an extradition. Embassies are not extra-territorial. British police didn't storm the embassy largely out of politeness and convention.
My comment specifically acknowledged this, however I see a very real chance that a court might view this as an extradition. It is the .ec government handing him over to a foreign country after all.
"UK must resist"
"Resist this attempt by the Trump administration"
and something else when he's in the van which I can't make out with people talking over it.
Funny. Trump has said he loves WikiLeaks, and likely has no interest in Assange getting extradited to the US.
And as for no interest in extraditing him, he was arrested in response to a US extradition request.
But the American intelligence community appears very interested in the guy and is known to have been working on extradition process in 2018.
If the American intelligence community wants to extradite Assange, I don't doubt somebody high-ranking in the CIA will sit down with the president and by the end of the meeting, have him thoroughly convinced that he's wanted Assange's extradition all along. They have agents trained in psychological operations and negotiation, and Trump is demonstrably an easy mark.
Unlikely, as it could play a big role in the whole ongoing public debate about the Trump-Russia connection.
> But the American intelligence community appears very interested in the guy and is known to have been working on extradition process in 2018.
Yep, but "Trump administration" seems to suggest that Trump is directing this, which seems comical to me.
I'm reminded of Bush Sr keeping Panama's President Manuel Noriega in cold storage.