Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.

Ecuador Denies That Julian Assange Will be Evicted From Embassy in London

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

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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 #1  Original Submission #2 

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Ecuador Denies That Julian Assange Will be Evicted From Embassy in London | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 46 comments | Search Discussion
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: 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).

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (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) 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.

    --
    “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz

    • (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?