Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday April 07 2019, @10:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the unwelcome-guest dept.

Looks like Assange may go from the loving arms of the Ecuadorian Embassy to London's finest cell when he is evicted, which is now imminent.

UK police outside Ecuador embassy amid WikiLeaks tweets

Also at The Hill.

Ecuador denies WikiLeaks claim it plans to release Julian Assange

The Ecuadorian government on Friday rejected claims by WikiLeaks that founder Julian Assange would be ousted from his sanctuary at the country's embassy in London "within hours to days."

Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement released Friday that the allegation was "an attempt to stain the dignity of the country," according to an NBC News translation. Ecuador "has made significant expenditures to pay for his stay" and has "endured its rudeness," the ministry continued.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Sunday April 07 2019, @12:24PM (31 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Sunday April 07 2019, @12:24PM (#825745) Homepage

    You watch - if Assange hasn't been in the news for a few weeks, he'll say/do/accuse/prompt something like this.

    It's some sort of narcissistic personality disorder, he can't help it, he has to be in the newspaper somewhere, whether or not what he's claiming is unfounded or not.

    It's his only escape route, to hope enough publicity will save him from a life of exile, or arrest. Because for damn sure he stays in the embassy until he's arrested by the UK police, whether or not the whole US/Sweden thing has any base to it whatsoever.

    He knows if he doesn't, he'll be forgotten.

    If you think about it, all Wikileaks, Snowden, Assange and Manning have proven is "If you know something, STFU up about it or live your entire life in prison or exile". The exact opposite of their supposed message. Nobody is up in arms and protesting about anything Wikileaks has ever published. All three of them were on the run from the law and captured in some way, and imprisoned in some way, despite all their publicity. And virtually nothing's happened *about* the things they reported, while at the same time they've shown themselves to be unreliable holders of that information, and implicated their own kind into official investigations by revealing such information.

    Assange is a twat. He'll either die in the embassy, or come out, spend a long time in jail (the judges won't forget that he evaded justice after breaking bail, and did so for many *years* in public view - they can't let that stand as an example, whether or not the actual crime he was wanted for happened) and then fade into obscurity after he gets out.

    He knows that. The only option he sees is to make as huge a fuss as possible and evade the law still. But I guarantee you that his actions have affected *every* asylum decision in *every* embassy in the world, because nobody's going to want a repeat of that.

    It's arguable that almost everything he did from the second he became famous actually *harmed* people wishing to whistleblow, fight against government oppression, etc. - all the things he claims to stand for.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=3, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @12:36PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @12:36PM (#825748)

    If you think about it, all Wikileaks, Snowden, Assange and Manning have proven is "If you know something, STFU up about it or live your entire life in prison or exile". The exact opposite of their supposed message.

    The problem with Assange and Snowden is they went public rather than submitting things to multiple news organizations and keeping their name & face out of the news. Manning got caught, but I don't believe s/he wanted to be publicly known (unlike Assange and Snowden).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:12PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:12PM (#825760)
      Yeah, Adrian Lamo basically sold her out when she instead wanted to be as anonymous as Deep Throat had been in the seventies. As for Snowden, the nature of his discoveries and the timeline was such that staying similarly anonymous might not have looked like a viable option. Assange on the other hand isn't a whistleblower like they were, but someone who was supposed to enable whistleblowers. His position might have been more like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, if only he'd stayed out of using his platform to play partisan politics too.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Acabatag on Monday April 08 2019, @03:53AM (1 child)

        by Acabatag (2885) on Monday April 08 2019, @03:53AM (#826060)

        To play partisan politics? Seriously? Assange went after Hillary and the DNC to point out that the Democrats are no better than the Republicans.

        That isn't partisan politics, it's exposing the world to reality.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday April 08 2019, @06:13AM

          by dry (223) on Monday April 08 2019, @06:13AM (#826081) Journal

          He could have exposed shit from both parties if he wanted to show them as the same.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:33PM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:33PM (#825771) Homepage Journal

      Manning drew attention to himself, immediately after Wikileaks made their initial announcements. He pointed out to his own supervisor that the data could only come from a small handful of computers, and that the data was a precise match to data available only from a server to which he had access. From there, things only became more "transparent", shall we say. Manning exposed himself just as surely as either Snowden or Assange, he merely chose a different manner in which to do so.

      --
      “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @03:28PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @03:28PM (#825802)

        I didn't k ow this about the Manning situation. Then we should group Manning in with Assange and Snowden. They all should have kept their heads down and their public mouths shut.

        • (Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:06PM

          by Pav (114) on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:06PM (#825988)

          Valerie Plame (an experienced undercover agent) put herself under every spotlight she could find after some of the most powerful people in the world "accidentally" arranged for her to be in mortal danger. There are a number of lines of evidence pointing to Seth Rich being the DNC leaker, and Bill Binney and others did a stellar job showing the "hack" narrative was BS. There are some powerful people who well earned the suspicion they're under for his murder. Who in their right mind would hide from the public gaze as a whistleblower against the deep state?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:00PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:00PM (#825755)
    Another way to look at it is that if Assange fails to keep his name out of the news, he gets forgotten by the public. It becomes relatively easier for a fortuitous "accident" or "suicide" to happen to someone like that.
    • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:15PM

      by loonycyborg (6905) on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:15PM (#825763)

      Dying would be very good way for him getting into news again.. Anyone who doesn't want that wouldn't want to kill him, even by "accident". Because nobody will believe even if it really was accident.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:13PM (#825761)

    You watch - if Assange hasn't been in the news for a few weeks, he'll say/do/accuse/prompt something like this.

    It sounds like the WikiLeaks twitter account said something, not Assange. It sounds like he doesn't even handle documents for the organization anymore due to being closely monitored. Maybe Ecuador took a step back since there was suddenly a lot of attention being paid to the situation.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:28PM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 07 2019, @01:28PM (#825769) Homepage Journal

    We agree on one thing, most definitely:

    his actions have affected *every* asylum decision in *every* embassy in the world, because nobody's going to want a repeat of that.

    Assange left himself no way out. There is no escape route. His *best* chance of escape, that of slipping out unnoticed by some method, he has destroyed, and destroyed again, time and again. I mean, the chance of slipping out were never "good", but just about the time those chances are "best", he blows it again. It's like, he doesn't want to escape - which gives credence to the rest of your post.

    Anyone who goes to an embassy seeking asylum in the future will surely raise questions. "Is this guy going to use us, like Assange used Ecuador?"

    --
    “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
    • (Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @03:52PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @03:52PM (#825814)

      I hear they have room over at the Saudi Embassy.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 07 2019, @04:26PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 07 2019, @04:26PM (#825826) Homepage Journal

        Hilarious.

        Which one, though?

        --
        “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @04:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @04:29PM (#825831)

          The one next to the butcher shop.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Sunday April 07 2019, @04:24PM (10 children)

    by Pav (114) on Sunday April 07 2019, @04:24PM (#825824)

    It always confuses me why people get so snarky about Assange. It's as if they've got a personal stake in the "big brothering" of themselves, their own electoral disenfranchisement (at least if they're on the Democrat side).

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Sunday April 07 2019, @08:30PM (9 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Sunday April 07 2019, @08:30PM (#825928) Homepage

      Personally?

      He threw whistleblowers under the train, then fled from charges, got "friends" to pay his bail and promptly skipped bail, and now evades the law at my expense (as a UK taxpayer).

      I don't blame the judiciary for that... we can't afford to let people just thumb their nose at the law because they cost a lot to chase, but we literally had NO INTEREST in him beyond a European Arrest Warrant that we were obliged to act upon (and sent back TWICE because it wasn't correct). And now he's living at... whose expense? As an outlaw. In the UK. Requiring police action and judicial costs. For someone who bails out on his friends, and has nothing else redeeming about him.

      I don't care about the whole US/Sweden thing as literally NOTHING happened that way. Nothing. But a UK court said "Okay, we trust you, we'll hold onto this money in exchange for you staying around" and he *ran*. But couldn't even do that properly. And then is literally on the news almost every week, crowing about how he's hard done by, isn't being treated well (when it's entirely self-inflicted AND at other's expense), etc.

      Wake up, get out, do your time for skipping bail, deal with the charges (if ANY) against you. Then you can earn some basic respect for facing up to your accusers. Until then, he's just a criminal on the run.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @09:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @09:50PM (#825951)

        You over there in Airstrip One could just drop the whole futile show about skipping bail and whatever and deport him to Australia as an undesirable foreigner if he is discovered outside the embassy. Or ignore his being shipped in a diplomatic car to the airport and then on a flight to Ecuador.

        But you're not. Because your former colony is pulling your puppet strings to keep him ready for extraditing, and at least to hold him unable to act.

      • (Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday April 07 2019, @10:43PM (3 children)

        by Pav (114) on Sunday April 07 2019, @10:43PM (#825978)

        So the UK is obliged to keep the Equadorian embassy under constant watch? For skipping bail for charges that have been dropped? I know conservatives shiver with excitement to serve power, but that's just embarrassing.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by ledow on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:18PM (2 children)

          by ledow (5567) on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:18PM (#825994) Homepage

          The skipping bail charges HAVE NOT been dropped.

          What charges he was facing *TO* skip bail were dropped. But he skipped court bail. That's basically contempt of court, whether or not he was innocent of the original charges or they were dropped. He promised the court he'd be a good boy and not run off. He didn't. So the UK court still have an arrest warrant out for him.

          It's like saying that charges for punching a policeman in the face should be dropped, because you did it while he was trying to arrest you for littering, and you didn't actually litter. Nobody cares. You still go to court for that OTHER, completely unrelated charge, because you're an idiot.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Pav on Monday April 08 2019, @12:14AM (1 child)

            by Pav (114) on Monday April 08 2019, @12:14AM (#826002)

            So... Assange says the charges were BS and manufactured to get him into custody and potential extradition AS HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROVED TO BE THE CASE (actually, it was also known at the time... One of Australias premier investigative teams [abc.net.au] went to Sweden, and discovered exactly how shady and irregular these charges were. It has also been leaked that the US is preparing a case for his potential extradition in a secret court, and literally hundreds of people solely tasked with taking Wikileaks down.

            So, in your view, the rare publishers and leakers brave enough to expose state criminality should lay their necks into the nooses prepared for them? I'm sure most people would rather be aware of the survelance state, be aware of the misappropriation of their tax dollars to fund muslim extremists, be aware of their disenfranchisement etc... But you... begrudge the 24hr survelance Assange is put under so that Downing St can be seen to have a sufficiently brown nose?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @10:09PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @10:09PM (#826397)

              )

              Just stick that in there somewhere, would you. Thanks.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Pav on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:17PM (1 child)

        by Pav (114) on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:17PM (#825992)

        BTW, he certainly never threw whistleblowers under the train... quite the contrary actually. Unfortunately the Guardian, Luke Hardy in particular, has been a source of a lot of BS on this front. He was also a big international pusher of Russiagate. The interview he did with Aaron Mate should have forever destroyed his credibility... unlikely though, because he's pushing "approved" narratives.

        • (Score: 2) by Pav on Monday April 08 2019, @12:36AM

          by Pav (114) on Monday April 08 2019, @12:36AM (#826008)

          Luke HARDING rather...

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @11:36PM (#825999)

        He said when he first ran that the UK just had to say "You will not be deported to the USA" and he would walk out the embassy. They have consistently weaseled out of saying that, and as a result he believes that as soon as he leaves the embassy, he's on a plane to Guantanamo. Not an unreasonable belief, considering that the UK has spent millions of pounds waiting to grab him.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @12:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @12:59PM (#826130)

        I understand the point that he skipped bail, which is something judiciary takes a special interest in because it makes them look... usurptive... BUT

        He threw whistleblowers under the train

        No he didn't. That is a white lie. I will give you a pass for being ignorant but then you should question the person or place where YOU heard it.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @05:42PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @05:42PM (#825865)

    If you think about it, all Wikileaks, Snowden, Assange and Manning have proven is "If you know something, STFU up about it or live your entire life in prison or exile". The exact opposite of their supposed message. Nobody is up in arms and protesting about anything Wikileaks has ever published. All three of them were on the run from the law and captured in some way, and imprisoned in some way, despite all their publicity. And virtually nothing's happened *about* the things they reported, while at the same time they've shown themselves to be unreliable holders of that information, and implicated their own kind into official investigations by revealing such information.

    They give The People an opportunity to fundamentally alter their corrupt governments. Opportunities are important, but if The People fail to use them, that is on them. This does not mean that whistleblowers should no longer blow the whistle.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday April 08 2019, @05:41PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Monday April 08 2019, @05:41PM (#826267) Journal

      They give The People an opportunity to fundamentally alter their corrupt governments. Opportunities are important, but if The People fail to use them, that is on them. This does not mean that whistleblowers should no longer blow the whistle.

      Morally and theoretically, sure. But practically, if potential whistleblowers consistently see The People fail to support other whistleblowers, then why take the risk? Keep in mind also that there's more than one way to fight back, so if that particular strategy consistently fails then it's better to look for alternatives rather than burning yourself for no reason. The number of people with access to that particular information AND the willingness to do something about it is going to be rather small, so it's not a position you should destroy without some strategic consideration. Maybe you can try to leak information slower so that you don't get caught and can get more out in the end. Maybe you can try to subtly sabotage these projects in ways that won't get noticed immediately. Maybe you can build some internal resistance. Getting your name in the papers for a few weeks might feel good, but if it doesn't change anything then what's the point?

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by shortscreen on Sunday April 07 2019, @07:04PM (2 children)

    by shortscreen (2252) on Sunday April 07 2019, @07:04PM (#825893) Journal

    if Assange hasn't been in the news for a few weeks, he'll say/do/accuse/prompt something like this

    Assange isn't saying/doing anything. He doesn't even have internet access right now.

    If you want to help the corrupt elites in their vengeful smear campaign against Assange, you'll have to come up with a new talking point, because the old "Assange just wants to be in the spotlight" doesn't even hold water at this point.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @09:36PM (#825945)

      He has a cell phone and an ego. That's all he needs to keep his name in the press.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @10:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @10:42PM (#825977)

        I've got a pretty big ego and one of the latest phones, damn media ignores me like the plague!

  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:13PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:13PM (#827941) Journal

    Apparently not.

    --
    Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!