Ecuador Complains Julian Assange Was a Bad Housegust, Neglected His Pet Cat (bbc.com) 211
The BBC reports that Ecuador's foreign minister Jose Valencia has been sharing complaints about Julian Assange's conduct during his stay in Ecuador's embassy -- for example, that Julian Assange "damaged the facilities by riding his skateboard and playing football, despite being told not to do so."
Cleaning staff, Mr Valencia said, had described "improper hygienic conduct" throughout Assange's stay, an issue that a lawyer had attributed to "stomach problems". One unnamed senior Ecuadorean official told AP news agency that other issues included "weeks without a shower" and a "dental problem born of poor hygiene". Interior Minister Maria Paula Romo then complained that Assange had been allowed to do things like "put faeces on the walls of the embassy and other behaviours of that nature...."
Assange's stay at the embassy cost Ecuador some $6.5m (£5m) from 2012 to 2018, Mr Valencia said.
NPR reports that Julian Assange's cat also "arguably played a small role in Ecuador's decision to end its asylum agreement," citing remarks from Ecuador President Lenin Moreno: Moreno explained that Assange treated his hosts disrespectfully; late last year the embassy implemented a series of rules for Assange, including a requirement to be responsible for the "well-being, food, hygiene and proper care of your pet." If Assange didn't, the embassy threatened to put the cat in a shelter. In other words, it is likely that Assange didn't effectively clean up after his cat's own wiki-leaks...
The New Yorker reported in 2017 that Assange's interest in the cat was less as an animal lover and more as a master of his own brand. "Julian stared at the cat for about half an hour, trying to figure out how it could be useful, and then came up with this: Yeah, let's say it's from my children," the magazine quoted one of Assange's friends as saying. "For a time, he said it didn't have a name because there was a competition in Ecuador, with schoolchildren, on what to name him. Everything is P.R. -- everything."
Journalist James Ball, an early WikiLeaks employee (who left after three months) said Thursday on Twitter that he'd "genuinely offered to adopt" the cat -- but it was "reportedly given to a shelter by the Ecuadorian embassy ages ago."
Assange's legal team, however, tweeted in November that Assange had been outraged by embassy threats to send the cat to the pound, and asked his lawyers "to take his cat to safety. The cat is with Assange's family. They will be reunited in freedom."
Assange's stay at the embassy cost Ecuador some $6.5m (£5m) from 2012 to 2018, Mr Valencia said.
NPR reports that Julian Assange's cat also "arguably played a small role in Ecuador's decision to end its asylum agreement," citing remarks from Ecuador President Lenin Moreno: Moreno explained that Assange treated his hosts disrespectfully; late last year the embassy implemented a series of rules for Assange, including a requirement to be responsible for the "well-being, food, hygiene and proper care of your pet." If Assange didn't, the embassy threatened to put the cat in a shelter. In other words, it is likely that Assange didn't effectively clean up after his cat's own wiki-leaks...
The New Yorker reported in 2017 that Assange's interest in the cat was less as an animal lover and more as a master of his own brand. "Julian stared at the cat for about half an hour, trying to figure out how it could be useful, and then came up with this: Yeah, let's say it's from my children," the magazine quoted one of Assange's friends as saying. "For a time, he said it didn't have a name because there was a competition in Ecuador, with schoolchildren, on what to name him. Everything is P.R. -- everything."
Journalist James Ball, an early WikiLeaks employee (who left after three months) said Thursday on Twitter that he'd "genuinely offered to adopt" the cat -- but it was "reportedly given to a shelter by the Ecuadorian embassy ages ago."
Assange's legal team, however, tweeted in November that Assange had been outraged by embassy threats to send the cat to the pound, and asked his lawyers "to take his cat to safety. The cat is with Assange's family. They will be reunited in freedom."
Gaslighting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That explains a few things. Well, who would have seriously expected any integrity or honor of Ecquatorian politicians. Or any politicians, really. Can be bought, just a matter of price.
It does not really matter whether any of these accusations are true either.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, who would have seriously expected any integrity or honor of Ecquatorian politicians. Or any politicians, really. Can be bought, just a matter of price.
To be fair, the $4.2B loan goes to the Ecuadorian people, not to the politicians. There is no apparent personal benefit for them.
The politicians are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents, not Julian Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a crooked politician, it will be easy enough to divert a substantial part of those billions into your own pockets, or those of your friends.
If you're an honest politician, or just genuinely concerned for the welfare of your people, wouldn't you sell one smelly foreigner down the river for a couple of billion added to your state budget?
Re: (Score:2)
I was away for a while, is it finally legal? Can we start?
Re:Gaslighting? (Score:4, Insightful)
From his rants and ravings, I expect this guy just isn't right in the head. Normally these "warriors of the norm" tend to have issues with basic common courtesy. Part of the outrage from what is considered normal for these people, because they just cannot understand normal conditions needed to live with other people.
Often, people who don't understand why people treat them poorly, they assume it is their fault, where it just may be them making others uncomfortable.
Being such an outsider is probably what drives him to do what he does, but it is also putting him into additional trouble. He was a guest of the Ecuador government, he seemed to think that the government is an unbreakable ally, not realizing that governments are just a group of people, the same groups of people he has a hard time dealing with.
Re: (Score:2)
After being confined to one building for so many years, living with constant fear that he will be in jail the next day, his head is probably a lot less right than it was going in.
Re: (Score:2)
If dipshit was so bright, he would have had a better plan to deal with the probability he'd be handed over to Sweden. Refuge in Equador was a prison of his own making.
Re: (Score:2)
What's more, the Swedish authorities never charged him with anything. The problem was that he believed that if he was ever arrested in Britain, for any reason, the U.S. would immediately reveal charges against him and demand extradition. He figured he wouldn't get a very favorable hearing in the U.S. -- probably rightly, but we'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
Once he was arrested in Britain, the US filed their extradition request within hours - so looks like he was right on that front, at least.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Re: (Score:3)
Being stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy for years will not have improved his health, mental or physical.
Re: (Score:2)
Jellomizer, can't you read? And why should we care about your opinion user-I've-never-seen-before?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't do them to screw you, he does them to enhance his own image [wikipedia.org]. When I first heard about the cat I was pretty confused, Mendax never gave a toss about animals, why would he want a cat? This NPR commentary explains it.
And no, it's not a smear campaign, that's the real Assange, they're describing him as he actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
War is hell. If the attack was as flagrant as (non-informed) activists claimed it was, the operators could still be tried in a military court.
Re: Gaslighting? (Score:2)
War isn't pretty, and the horrible war crime so many believe they saw in that video can only be seen by those unaware of how war really is (watch the first 15-20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan"), it's more like that than any John Wayne war film.
Insightful spelling error? (Score:2, Troll)
Presumably you mean "character assassination", but it's really hard to see much insight there. My new theory is that the real reason for the first-post frenzy is in quest of the easy "insightful" mod that is frequently given to an early comment. Yet another aspect of the broken moderation.
The cat is actually more significant than you seem to understand, per my longer comment on the associated poll: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
This story casts doubt on Assange's love of the cat. If Assange actually does
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Trump can only pardon federal convictions and murder is generally a state offense that he can't pardon. This is one reason the investigations by the New York state authorities is so interesting. Regardless of whether or not Trump can pardon himself (and there's some question on that point) he can't pardon him
Re: (Score:2)
The US federal gov't prosecutes many murder charges. They're merely required to "have greater standing" over a state prosecution of murder. Trump would merely need to find a suitable assassin under federal murder charges to give the pitch. Of course, this line of thought is completely juvenile, bordering on idiotic.
Getting around those nasty little states? (Score:2)
I think that by now we should have learned that there are no limits to what Trump is willing to do, no barrel big enough to keep him from crashing through the bottom. Also, no matter what sort of idiot he is (and I often doubt if he rises to the level of useful idiocy), he is easily manipulated by some quite nasty and cunning people, not even starting with all those criminals whose money he's been laundering for so many years. I think Trump's mental condition goes ALL the way back to his infancy, when he wa
Re: (Score:2)
They may be working the same scam, but they're not all in it together.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm leaning towards "opportunistic assassination". I'm quite ready to believe he's an asshole, and a good chunk of TFS.
But only a naive person will overlook how emphatically it's being presented as relevant. Plenty of criminals were unhygienic assholes and such, but how many articles about murderers bother to mention it? Except as distraction, a sideshow, a circus, misdirection.
Or to discredit someone. Especially someone with things to claim that you really want discredited.
Re: (Score:2)
My personal opinion is that Ecuador's releasing these statements to wash their hands of ties to Assange.
He was their guest, and recipient of asylum. When they revoked that asylum, he became the martyr he's spent a decade claiming to be. He has an army of unscrupulous followers with no qualms about attacking governments that Assange doesn't like.
There's been a slew of articles lately about how much it cost to house him, how bad a guest he was, how much he offended Ecuador... it doesn't seem to be aimed much
Re:Gaslighting? (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, there's been enough coverage get a clear picture of him beyond the hype - he's a controlling megalomaniac who thought that he could hold his own playing power-geo-politics in the same arena as the US and Russia. The man thought that he could go toe-to-toe with a frikkin superpower. Talk about delusions of grandeur.
Wikileaks was a noble idea at the very start but it quickly got corrupted, and Assange himself is mostly to blame. If you're going to run a clean free-information clearinghouse, then you treat all submitted information the same and release it all in the same matter. Assange wasn't doing this. He was releasing some info, holding other info back, and timing the releases in order to settle scores and make points with whomever he chose. Sorry, you don't get to do that and simultaneously claim victimhood or nobility. Well, you can, but anyone with (IQ>90) isn't gonna buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me what you think constitutes gaslighting. Because I don't see any here, but then again I actually know what it means.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean he sets fire to farts? I guess that fits with the headline saying he was a housegust.
Re: (Score:2)
The character assassination started as soon as Wikileaks started doing real work. When wikileaks was sharing files with 5 major newspapers the NYTimes was already focusing more on his character than on the files.
What this is now is an tightly coordinated transfer of Assange to the US, with the right legal cover everwhere(if you don't look closely). The US charges against him are designed to serve this purpose. Once they get a hold of him the charges will change.
The ex president Correa is very explicitly con
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard some things from people that actually met him... If those things are true he isn't a nice person from the start and keeping himself as a fugitive eremite for a such a long time will have severe mental impact on all but the strongest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was a pun by the reporters, not the embassy. I know you worship the air Assange breathes, but try to get a grip on reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember it was the Obama administration that did not bring charges against Assange because it was felt this would be a bad precedent for journalists who do the same thing. Then Trump, who once praised Assange, soured on him and his administration pressed charges.
And yes, Assange was controlling wikileaks from where he was, one of the things that the Ecuadorean embassy was not happy about (ie, not politics while being a refugee).
Re: (Score:2)
the journalists have no charges against them because they were not involved in acquiring them:
As important, they didn't reveal anything that could be interpreted as jeopardizing US national security or damaging ongoing intelligence operations. They operated as journalists, picking out the items that were newsworthy, but not publicizing information that got US operatives killed or otherwise damage "legitimate" deep cover operations. They probably even gave advance notice to US security agencies before releasing their stories. This was also a part of Snowden's designed intention when he gave them t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Gaslighting? (Score:2)
"He's never stepped foot in the US"?
Are you certain about that blanket claim? "Never" is a really long time - he never gave a speech, attended a fundraiser, anything, EVER?
That being said, having set foot on US soil, if he ever did, would not obligate him to put US interests first or put him st risk for treason charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Hotel and hospital have literally the same root. Word variations diverge in meaning over time quite a lot. In either case, treachery and treason are not literally the same word. Neither of us spelled the two words the same for starters. My guess is you wouldn't pronounce them the same either.
Re: (Score:2)
He means it exponentially.
Cardinal Richelieu could have written this (Score:5, Insightful)
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
A depressed man stares at his cat? He must be a rogue!
Re: Cardinal Richelieu could have written this (Score:2, Insightful)
Will make a better movie than SJW Skywalker.
Yeah sure (Score:3, Insightful)
No character assassination going on here, just honest diplomatic concern.
The sweet succulent sound of debt relief (Score:1)
Ecuador just got some of that debt relief from the IMF
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, who did?
Re: (Score:2)
They soured on him the moment they got a new president in 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
The Impossible Mission Force answers to no one!
When there's bipartisan agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that not one of the offended parties claims anything he published was fake or a lie. This is pure shoot the messenger to deflect from your own guilt stuff.
Exactly. The whole premise of democracy is dissent and the challenging of power by embarrassing it. By shutting down a famous journalist this way they are saying "We can do this to anyone, anytime."
This isn't just bad for Assange, it's bad for everybody.
The premise of democracy is mob rule. That's why we have a constitutional republic and not a true democracy. What we're seeing however is neither a republic nor a democracy but an elitist deep state that was embarrassed and is out for blood looking to hang someone.
Julian's down fall ultimately is that he's a monumental prick. No one likes him and so no one defends him. Even people that admire his work but know him personally are drop dead quiet through all of this because they can't be bothered to give a fu
Equator has been complaining about him for years (Score:5, Insightful)
About him having terrible hygiene.
About him wiping feces all over the walls
About verbally attacking officials at the embassy
Remember, they started restricting his movements and internet access years before. This is NOTHING new.
He'd been locked up in an embassy for 6 years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect he's lost his marbles.
I don't understand this argument. Embassy's are essentially fancy hotels. There are people locked up in worse place that don't do the shit he does. I find the excuse to be very hollow and I state that as someone that wants him to continue his work.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange doesn't get diplomat quarters. He gets servant room closet quarters. Still marginally nicer than a jail cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see how well your mental health is when you're restricted to only a couple rooms for almost 7 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Been there. It ain't that bad, but then again, I'm not really into the whole publicity thing, I'm more the type of person who is happiest if I'm left alone and nobody bothers me. I guess for someone who needs attention 24/7 it must be soul crushing.
He's an asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
He was always a frontman. (Score:1)
The problem was him going from frontman to glorious leader of wikileaks along with the cabal of his cronies. The whole openleaks schism was from them not liking how he and others in the organization had begun curating the materials, using it to slant the data under claims of 'protecting sensitive information' while conveniently leaking data which was damaging in ways that suited the narrative. As dangerous as it could be if every random document was leaked, it is more damaging if they are selectively leake
Assange is a bad journalist and a useful idiot... (Score:1)
If I ever got a mod point to give, I'd give this one an interesting, but...
Anyway, I'm mostly disagreeing with you, but beyond the Comment Subect: line I'm only going to refer to my longer comment in the related poll: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Character assasination (Score:1)
They probably have something really bad to hide, otherwise they would not "share" these stories, no matter whether true or not.
Hey, at least they didn't have to house RMS ! (Score:1)
I doubt he would have lasted nearly as long.
Viewpoint by a law professor ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a opinion piece by a US law professor: How likely is an Assange conviction in the USA [bbc.com].
The thing that Assange will be extradited for, is the password thing with Manning. The professor says this is no different than a journalist setting up a drop point for information.
Never the less, Assange will be convicted, and most likely new charges will magically appear once he is on US soil.
The issue here is not whether Assange has bad personal hygiene, or whether he is a self serving narcissist. The issue is freedom of the press in Western democracies, and the willingness to make an example out of him to deter others.
Re: (Score:2)
Extradition prevents the US from adding new charges, so we he goes, we will know exactly they are going to try him for.
Consider he locked himself up in an embassy, for what 7 to 8 years, seems like he punished himself. I don't think the US is going to charge him with anything else, another 5 years seems like a lot. If he is truly smart, he cuts a deal and give the US government information about the Trump campaign or Wikileaks, and the worse that might happen is that he sent back to Sweden for rape charges,
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it would have worked, pre-Trump. These days? Anything goes. It would create a lot of diplomatic fallout to add new charges after extradition, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Too many powerful people calling for his head on a platter.
Re: (Score:2)
he cuts a deal and give the US government information about the Trump campaign or Wikileaks
To whom? Mueller is not a special prosecutor anymore; the Russia investigation is closed. There is no deal for Assange to give information.
the worse that might happen is that he sent back to Sweden for rape charges
Nope. Sweden close that book a few years back. Also, Sweden was only investigating him for sexual abuse charges; they never build a sufficiently strong case to keep a possible indictment alive.
if he stays in the US, he would be monitored or just keep from an internet connection and that would probably just break him.
Childishly melodramatic. Assange is going to be charged with a felony, basically aiding Manning in obtaining unauthorized access to a military computer system, and then collec
Re: (Score:3)
Well luckily, as always pointed out here, the USA has strong freedom of speech protections so any judge will release him due to the 1st amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
The professor says this is no different than a journalist setting up a drop point for information.
Turley said he doubted that the charge based on Assange aiding Manning obtaining an unauthorized password would either stick or be used, (which I find a ridiculous notion from a legal scholar) and that the cloud aspect of Assange's crime was no different than setting up a drop point.
Assange may not be gitmo'ed or be spending time at a supermax, but rest assurred Assange will be convicted of a felony and spend multiple years for it.
Re: (Score:2)
bbc read slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
After https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org] I finally heard the BBC reporting on the radio this morning that Wikileaks have advised that the cat is ok.
No mention of how Assange is doing, but at least they finally covered the important aspect of the story.
Re: (Score:2)
People are strange. They'll fret for hours over the state of a cat, and form an angry and vengeful mob if one is harmed, then eat chicken for lunch without a thought as to where the meat comes from.
Housegust? (Score:2)
Fuck! That's two errors on the front page this morning!
*sigh*
I get that not everyone has good grammar (or uses Grammarly), but FFS, every modern device that edits text has a spell checker built in... Use the goddamn thing!
confinement (Score:2)
I don't know Assange personally, so who am I to judge on his character?
But I do wonder how much of this is something that years of confinement do to you? From what I gather, prison inmates have more than he had. At least they have a yard and sports and work. Assange was literally sitting in a few rooms for years. It would be strange if that hadn't affected him mentally.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, this guy [i.cbc.ca] sure doesn't look like someone with poor hygiene who might go weeks without a shower and smear feces on a wall in protest....
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He is not being charged with anything related to the mishandling or publishing of classified material.
Not according to the charges laid [slashdot.org]. They allege that he was in possession of US military databases.
Re: (Score:2)
He is alleged to have possessed classified material, but that's not the same as being charged with the mishandling or publishing of that material.
The indictment consists of a list of alleged circumstances around the violation, then the charged violation itself. In this case, the allegations cover precisely what material Assange (allegedly) had, and what he was (allegedly) trying to obtain by committing his (alleged) crime of conspiring to crack a password without authorization. The charges themselves do not
Re: (Score:2)
They allege that he was in possession of US military databases.
He is alleged to have possessed classified material, but that's not the same as being charged with the mishandling or publishing of that material.
I agree about the hacking charges - they were there. The rest of your comment is unclear about what you mean when you are referring to mishandling? You have to be in possession of the data to mishandle it and Assange wasn't cleared to be in possession of that data. Are you saying Assange was cleared to have the data and used it outside of the scope his authorization? What specific charge of "mishandling" data are you suggesting he was not charged with?
Assange is still not being added as "a party to Manning's crimes", though from reading that list, I'm not sure if Assange's indictment would be in reference to a particular one of Manning's crimes.
Did you follow and read the link to the charge sheet?
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be trying very hard to find an argument to win.
What specific charge of "mishandling" data are you suggesting he was not charged with?
Section 793(e) would seem to apply as it covers those who have unauthorized possession of documents, but that's not the point. My original comment was in response to the assumption that the US is going to prosecute Assange for things Manning did. Manning has plenty of espionage charges, but those are largely irrelevant to Assange's case, other than the simple fact that they are "an offense".
Manning is the party mentioned to be the person that Assange conspired with under 18 U.S. Code 371
That makes Manning potentially a party to Assange's alleged
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be trying very hard to find an argument to win.
What specific charge of "mishandling" data are you suggesting he was not charged with?
Section 793(e) would seem to apply as it covers those who have unauthorized possession of documents,
Ok, yes I see what you mean, so the charge sheet mentions 793(c) as well as 793(e).
but that's not the point. My original comment was in response to the assumption that the US is going to prosecute Assange for things Manning did. Manning has plenty of espionage charges, but those are largely irrelevant to Assange's case, other than the simple fact that they are "an offense".
Perhaps they are using 371 and 1030 to explore for more charges, I see what you are getting at though - I appreciate the clarification and I also see 641 sets a really low limit of $1000 worth of value that has to be exceeded for that to apply. They're really making sure they can get him
Manning is the party mentioned to be the person that Assange conspired with under 18 U.S. Code 371
That makes Manning potentially a party to Assange's alleged crime (though Manning is not included in the current indictment, I believe she could be added later), but it does not make Assange a party to Manning's already-charged crimes.
Manning is Item 1 in the materials on the indictment and also mentioned as the co-conspirator under ACTS TO FURTHER THE CONSPIRACY for ite
Re: (Score:2)
I did read it, I also read the charges, that may be a little to much for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I linked the DOJ document and the original charge sheet. Go follow my link, all the information is there.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think he's going to be able to make public about anything concerning his prosecution? Yoo-nited States security court; that's where his case is headed.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't they have smuggled him out during a pea-souper?
Re: (Score:2)
You can blame the Brits for that.
Blame them for what? Following their law? Assange violated his bail agreement when the courts were in the process of handing him over (purportedly) to Sweden.
As long as Assange was in the Equadorian embassy in London, UK law (coupled with foreign treaties) dictated they were seize him the moment Assange was on British soil, and hand him over to the relevant authorities. There's no point in challenging US extradition (by UK 3rd parties) once Assange demonstrated he would violate bail agreements.
The US military would do well to remember that the next time they can't get decent Intel or stuff leaks.
The US mil
Re: (Score:2)
Why would one, wage war on every first world nation? Even fans of Assange, wouldn't do what he does, because most of us are sane enough to not risk everything we have, separate ourselves from friends and families.
Re: (Score:3)
Also remember that most journalists don't just dump secret documents they get wholesale without curating them. This is why a lot of people hate Assange but praise Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange definitely curated the documents he released. He just did it for political favor, rather than any sense of commonly-accepted ethics.
As for Snowden, the people who praise him tend to have little understanding of what exactly he did, instead relying on the narratives that his supporters have fabricated.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Snowden, the people who praise him tend to have little understanding of what exactly he did,
And you do??? Keep wavying your "deep state" treason flag.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue no "legitimate", competent journalist would release classified information without first curating them.
This is why a lot of people hate Assange but praise Snowden.
Amen.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes no sense
It's plausible - lock somebody in a room for seven years and they start to get depressed and do crazy things. It's entirely possible Assange entered emotionally strong and gradually lost it. Humans cannot live like that, which is why the detention was roundly condemned by many human-rights organizations, not the least of which is the UN as a violation of international law.
Despite that he muddled on with Wikileaks work while imprisoned. Not as much as I would have liked to have seen, but
Re: (Score:3)
The UN ruling is ridiculous and should be laughed at, because it doesn't just cover the time in the Ecuadorean embassy - the UN ruling said Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was first arrested under the extradition warrant.
Basically, the UN ruling implied that no one can be arrested pending extradition. In fact, if taken seriously, it throws into doubt the entire concept of arrest and detention at any point prior to conviction.
Which is why every one laughed at it and rightfully took no
Re: (Score:2)
And your comment has nothing to do with my comment or the UN ruling.
International law does not prohibit the very very common practice of arrest and detention for interview under caution, charges being brought, and court bail or custodial remand while awaiting trial. Those are the things that Assange was subject to prior to his abscondment into the Ecuadorean embassy, and those are the things that the UN ruling includes in its period of "arbitrary detainment".
If held as correct, the UN ruling utterly destro
Re: (Score:1)
You're assuming that there will be no additional charges (from a country where prosecutors have a habit of piling on charges), and that he wasn't headed for an 'accident'.
You're also glossing over the fact that he was already cleared of those charges from Sweden when he was still in Sweden, and then was told he was free to leave. It does look a bit odd that after that, once the U.S. decides it wants to 'talk with him', suddenly the dead accusation comes back to life and requires extradition.
Re: (Score:2)
It does look a bit odd that after that, once the U.S. decides it wants to 'talk with him', suddenly the dead accusation comes back to life and requires extradition.
The court document were filed in secret March 6th 2018 and unsealed on the same day of the arrest according to the press release from the DOJ [justice.gov] which also has a link to the seven page charge sheet at the end of the release (which doesn't allow a direct link).
Accordingly Assange has been charged:
18 U.S. Code 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States [cornell.edu]
18 U.S. Code 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers [cornell.edu] sections (a)(1), (a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(ii).
Maximum penalty 5 y
Re: (Score:2)
If he hadn't bail jumped then the Brits wouldn't have had any reason to bother him.
If Assange didn't jump bail, he would have most likely have been handed over to Swedish authorities, with the remote possibility of being handed over to the US first. I don't think violating his bail agreement was justified, but its pretty disingenuous to imply Assange faced no consequence for abiding by his bail agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
The being the BBC news, not Fox News or MSNBC, I expect a degree of professional journalism from them. There is little to gain from making him seem like a model resident vs. a horrible human. In terms of the court and countries that want him to see locked up behind bars, they have more evidence to show thean being a bad house guest.
Re: True or not WTF difference does it make (Score:3)
"professional journalism"
It appears all the semi-official media outlets are regurgitating the Official Narrative. I believe that is what's now considered journalistic professionalism.
It matters because journalism needs truth (Score:1)
Interesting comment, and I guess that I'd moderate it that way if I ever had a mod point to give. I think you raise a number of interesting points, and I like your style, though (on the premise you are fuzzily and indirectly defending Assange) I still mostly disagree, especially about this one:
Fark that misogynist racist nepotistic asshole Trump for flip-flopping and hanging Julian out to dry.
While I think your characterization of Trump is much too kind, I'm actually predicting that Trump is about to pardon Assange. Details of my crazy conspiracy theory are already in the related poll, so I'm just going to
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for modding this way down so I couldn't see the responses in time to reply while the post is hot.
Everyone pull your heads out and watch this before saying anything more in public:
https://youtu.be/_xSRS5YpiQM [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
seriously. Ecuador is a country in the world, and as any nation has real-world responsibilities to support truth, freedom and justice. They didn't keep him out of prison - they kept him in THEIR prison to use as a political pawn. Diplomatically, they COULD have transferred him to Ecuador a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue they didn't even give a fuck about Assange then. It was about the President of Ecuador (at the time) itching to flip the bird towards the US.