The current government of Ecuador has not only handed him over, however, but has even handed over his personal belongings in the embassy to the US government. So much for protecting him from political persecution!
So you must give credit to the prior government, not the current one.
(A) Ecuador received a $4.2B loan from the US-dominated IMF, which was approved around the same time Assange was dragged out of the embassy, and
(B) President Moreno was caught up in the INA Papers scandal where many personal photos, messages, and documents were published, and Moreno accused Assange of involvement shortly before evicting Assange.
----
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/11/rafael-corr...
> "“The greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history, Lenin Moreno, allowed the British police to enter our embassy in London to arrest Assange,” Mr. Correa tweeted. “Moreno is a corrupt man, but what he has done is a crime that humanity will never forget.”
Change of Government, new person is power was always anti-assange. Government changed, Assange out.
Assange violated the terms of his asylum.
The reality is that Latin American governments often make deceptive and untrue claims to support activities that benefit them.
In this case, Ecuador made several unsubstantiated claims ostensibly designed to humiliate Assange, which fall short of any reasonable attempt to prove that Assange violated the terms of his asylum.
He would have probably been better off pulling a Snowden and disappearing into Hong Kong for a while...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-imf/ecuador-inks-...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuador-jilted-assange-as-it-so...
Political asylum is not normally revoked because someone is a bad house guest, and one former embassy employee has gone on the record stating that the new Ecuadorian government did its best to make Assange's life in the embassy living hell, and that he was actually a courteous guest. It is in the interest of the Ecuadorian government to defame Assange and to make excuses for their sudden cooperation with American authorities.
There's video.
Meeting with Manafort about Assange was one of the first things Moreno did when he was in power.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/manafort-tried-to-make-deal-...
The world would be a much better place if people would learn to distinguish between “a person with political power said so” and actual evidence.
That is a straight up attack on legitimacy. And legitimacy is one of a few basic political powers. That makes it a big deal. (Others are having an army, ownership of the means of production, etc...)
All that means is the propaganda worked on you.
In contrast, Lenin Moreno (current president of Ecuador) was the political succesor of Rafael Correa (previous president) and was in line with Correa's policies... until after being elected. He then turned around many of Correa's policies and is seen as a traitor by the latter.
This is more as if Hillary had won (ok, I know, not a perfect analogy!) and afterwards tore down everything Obama stood for.
This is exactly what he said would happen if he would give in to the Swedish/UK authorities.
Many may not remember, but Assange also said that the Swedish charges were manufactured precisely so he can be 1) discredited and 2) eventually extradited to U.S. once in custody.
That result was entirely his choice. He chose to go to the UK. That's not where you go if you're fearful of the US picking you up.
He chose to leave Sweden where he wouldn't likely be extradited to the US as Sweden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes ....
Every single person on the entire planet can be charged with dozens of things by a u.s. prosecutor with enough time and incentive. That's how the laws are designed. If they want you, they _will_ get you.
My point isn't so much that this one specific violation wouldn't qualify for extradition. It's that the laws are so intentionally vague and broad and numerous that they can be interpreted in such a way to charge _anybody_ with _something_ if they want to.
The UK doesn't from their soil. There's good reason to think they don't have a issue with extraordinary rendition in the global sense; I think they just don't like the idea of a former colony subverting their legal system. But all of that means that it's more likely for Assange to stay in the legal system in the UK rather than being black bagged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
I'm sure he'd prefer to leave the UK too if he could, but between Sweden and the UK, when facing this amount of scrutiny from the US, the UK is his obvious choice since they don't allow extraordinary rendition starting from their soil.
And the reputation the US used wasn't their good side, it was the economic threats against Sweden that made them capitulate. The US is still more than willing to take such measures to get what it wants.
(The UK makes dubious decisions to repatriate asylum seekers to countries like Egypt all the time FWIW)
It is reasonable to think that the Swedes have identified a different avenue that they can use to have Assange leave the country care of the US, and that they would exercise that option once they have him in custody.
That is almost certainly what Assange thinks. I don't know I've ever seen the likely penalty for what he was charged with, but I doubt it is more than a decade and he would have spent longer than that in the Ecuadorian Embassy the way things were shaping up. His actions are only rational if he is expecting the US to be involved.
It's certainly amusing to see Assange fans rewrite history to make the UK the good guy when it comes to not cooperating with the US over extraordinary renditions (or indeed ordinary ones). Even the UK government wouldn't make that claim.
Granted, that's a very human thing to do. He's not alone... politicians all the time.
Back in the day when there was a wikileaks facebook page, if you followed up asking about "hey you said you'd release X" after they talked something up and did nothing ... they'd just delete your comment.
This statement is not accurate. There were not, and are not, any charges in Sweden against Assange. There is only an investigation.
If not, why did he seek asylum?
Stuff could happen in Ecuador too. Sweeden still seems like a far better bet, legally, and visibility wise.
Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left the embassy.
[1] We're still trying to extradite Polanski, even though he's been a fugitive for decades. The US legal system has patience, largely because everything takes so long anyways.
Even if guilty and they can prove it, a Swedish jail is probably nicer than a US one and I doubt he would go down for longer for the alleged crimes in Sweden than for those in the US. What was it - sex without a condom? Versus the espionage in the US?
The case had gone through not one but two prosecutor, both which dropped the case. Rumors of US influence and a third prosecutor picks up the case.
Could be nothing of course and just part of normal operation by the legal system. Just because people were out to get him doesn't mean he should had reacted paranoid about it.
Everyone was claiming that there were no secret charges, and we were a conspiracy theorist if we thought so.
This went on for years.
What I thought, and still think, is that the idea that Assange would be executed is absurd. I also thought that the idea of Assange being whisked away to "black site" is absurd.
There is evidence (here-say) that he fired a rifle during a military confrontation and dug a trench, and according to the guards he said some nasty things to them during his extra-judicial detention, but I don’t see any charges enumerating the laws he broke:
At the end of the day, the conspiracy theorists were right.
Regardless of all the lies that the US government made, they were always going to make an extradiction request the moment Assange stepped out of the embassy.
So for 6 of the 7 years he was in there, the "you all are crazy conspiracy people" people were correct, and only for the last year have the crazy conspiracy people been correct.
Previous speculation about USG extraditing Assange was solidly grounded in looking at underlying motivations and capabilities. Claiming that there would be no extradition was essentially implying that Assange couldn't be charged under US law, presumably due to some combination of the first amendment and jurisdictional issues. To anybody that pays attention to how USG actually operates, this was at best naive. Now the reality has finally been demonstrated.
This tendency to malign a non-official narrative as "crazy" for lack of a smoking gun demonstrates exactly why leakers are so vital. The conversation of 2012 would have looked much different if "he's hiding in the embassy simply to escape a rape charge" had been a completely nonsensical position. But as it was, it provided a basis for FUD while the "Assange bad" drums pushed people into thinking that it's right for something bad to happen to him.
The claim, all along, was that as soon as he is out of the embassy that the US will bring out their espionage charges.
And he just got out of the embassy,and guess what happened? He recieved espionage charges. Exactly as predicted.
It was, of course, the case that it was a sealed indictment and wasn't supposed to be released at all prior to the individual charged being arrested, but that is kind of a normal thing in our legal system; many of the charges against the individuals prosecuted as a result of the Mueller investigation came in the form of sealed charges, as another prominent instance of the practice.
Ok, well if it is normal then nobody should have been calling anyone at all a conspiracy theorist for saying that the US was going to have an extradition request the moment he stepped out of the embassy.
We were right. He stepped outside and now there are charges.
(In general, the US government is not supposed to explicitly lie to the American people, hence the "I can neither confirm nor deny" line that comes up when an issue is classified; you can't say P, because you can't reveal classified information, but you also can't say not-P because you aren't allowed to lie in an official capacity.)
Whether or not they were provably right at the time is not the issue. They were right. They could read between the lines, and they were right.
While the Foreign Office may insist that we will never extradite if there is a possibility of the death penalty, the Home Office on the other hand can take it upon themselves to waive that requirement and have apparently done so recently in another case, so it is possible and the UK is quite prepared to say that it isn't, while doing it - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067
>>> Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes.
>> Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody.
> I do think he's being dishonest, yes. He has access to skilled lawyers, and his concern about extradition to the US is irrational: it's easier to extradite him where he is.
I don't think that there were many people arguing that the US didn't want him but it looks like the US was willing to wait for him to wear out his welcome with the Ecuadorans and completely skip over the Swedes. I wonder had he never gotten to the Ecuadorean embassy if the US would have raised a competing claim with Sweden.
One side was arguing he was hiding from a rape charge, the other side argued he was hiding from a possible extradition order. Both of those have to do with Assange's likely motivation and are to some degree independent of the facts on the ground - as you point out, the facts of one argument are so far unprovable.
The hiding-from-rape argument has been pretty much debunked by the 7 year timeframe. I don't know what Assange was up for in Sweden, but it beggars belief that he would get more than 7 years jail for a non-violent crime. A fine and community service, maybe. Most aspects of the case must be almost evidence-free and would be a struggle to prove if he says 'didn't happen that way'.
Whatever the truth, he was clearly hiding from a greater threat than the charges the Swedes were bringing against him.
Isn't rape usually considered a violent crime by default? Apparently rape is between 4 and 10 years in prison in Sweden so it could certainly have been more than 7 if the Swedes decided to throw the book at him. Having made them wait, they might have been more willing to do so.
But think that even if it was certainly less than that Assange's actions don't disprove the accusation. The embassy was arguably more comfortable than prison and effectively allowed him to continue his political activity (despite the Ecuadorans request that he not do so,) and more importantly, there's a bit of a sunk cost impulse: he probably didn't enter the embassy with the expectation of staying for 7 years.
The answer to that question is a bit complex and involve a bit of language barrier and differences in the way the law is organized.
Rape is not a specific crime, but a heading in the legal text and a category. As such you have "lesser rape" being defined by one set of circumstances, "rape" with other circumstances, and "serious rape" for a third set of circumstances.
Initiating sex with someone who is sleeping belongs to the first set of circumstances, i.e. lesser rape, and hold a maximum punishment of 4 years and minimum of 6 months.
As for the expected punishment in the Assange case we can look at a predicate where a accused inserted a finger while a woman was sleeping after a party and stopped when she woke up. The punishment was 10 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
Either way, extradition is a very different thing.
And yes, it's not extradition either. That's the point I'm making.
He really believe Sweden would extradite him, imo.
That's a bizarre statement.
Most took issue with the hyperbole that was attached to what he would be charged with, "droned" or otherwise dealt with, not if he would or wouldn't be charged with anything.
This is one of those classic conspiracy theory type situations where it is "oh look people said this wasn't a thing and here it is" and it's way not what anyone else said either... and that doesn't prove anything.
The arguments generally present on here was that:
1) He'd already been in custody in the UK for some time, so if the US wanted him, and the UK was willing to hand him over, then that would have already taken place, but had not.
2) Under EU rules, if the UK has extradited him to Sweden, and then the US asked for him, both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to hand him over, making him strictly safer in Sweden than in the UK.
3) Much of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of being charged with a capital crime, but under EU rules neither the UK nor Sweden could have handed him over to face a capital charge.
4) Much of the remainder of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of going to Sweden, but he was already in the UK, and the UK is famously willing to cooperate with the US. The UK was not a safe place for Assange to be!
All four points have been vindicated by events so far. What Assange ended up doing was finding a way to avoid going to Sweden and instead hang out in the UK for so long that eventually the US asked, and the UK handed him over, just as expected.
Had Assange quietly gone to Sweden to contest the charges against him, would things have worked out better for him? We'll never know now, but it's very plausible.
> Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard.
In any case, the specific claims he made remain, at best, unsubstantiated. He wasn't extradited from Sweden, and he isn't facing a capital charge.
Pardoning Manning also doesn't quite with the idea of the (previous) US admin being too invested in punishing Wikileaks.
That still shows a less than friendly attitude to whistleblowers and a hypocritical double standard of holding those in power to a far lower standard. It stinks of cynical "we just want the bad PR to go away but don't want to say she did the right thing" so just commuting to validate the court ruling. Meanwhile Petreaus we should assert that the ruling class are seperate and should be sancrosanct - pardon!
There was some golden age that is always a generation ago where journalists did great things, but, they weren't journalists, they were whistleblowers that happened to work for the media.
If you work for the corporate media then this 'golden age' journalism is just not possible. You would be sacked if you wrote the truth or went further than the press releases on the newswire for content.
Who observes what actually matters. They will get it wrong again.
We can have a healthy discussion about intent, and we should. No matter the intent, it's pretty damn important to understand who is lucid on all of this and who is not.
And for those who are not? Let's talk more, get them lucid. This isn't a personal thing. It's political, and while the norms surrounding politics seem more harsh than necessary, I refuse to subscribe to any of that.
Wrong, right? I personally do not care too much. We get things wrong, and we get them right. The conversation about all of that, the process?
That is what matters, and it's where the good stuff is.
The times are escalating conflict times. Not growing more stable.
Ignore all of that at our mutual peril.
Did they? I thought it was commonly held he would face such charges. The allegations around delusion were in respect of his ability to evade them for the rest of his life.
Here is tptacek saying that Assagne was dishonest and irrational when claiming to fear extradition to America: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329
Go through his comment history and survey what he's been saying about Assange over the years. It's pretty egregious.
Since he was forced out of the embassy into the arms of UK police, and never planned to go to Sweden, I don't think we'll ever know if he would have been extradited from Sweden (or on route to Sweden) or not.
Tptacek was making a point that's a bit more nuanced than you seem to give credit for. He hasn't been "proven wrong" by the UK allowing US to extradite Assange.
Let's be real here, he never would have made it to Sweden. One way or another, Assange's fear that leaving the embassy would end in him in an American courtroom was neither irrational nor dishonest.
Titled Definition of paranoia: supporters of Julian Assange. Feel free to read the text in the contest of today's news.
"More pertinently, Greenwald and the rest of Assange's supporters do not tell us how the Americans could prosecute the incontinent leaker. American democracy is guilty of many crimes and corruptions. But the First Amendment to the US constitution is the finest defence of freedom of speech yet written. The American Civil Liberties Union thinks it would be unconstitutional for a judge to punish Assange... From the 1970s, when the New York Times printed the Pentagon Papers, to today's accounts of secret prisons and the bugging of US citizens, the American courts "have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information". Maybe the authorities could prosecute Assange for alleged links with hackers. I don't know – unlike Assange, I cannot see the future. But why would they bother to imprison him when he is making such a good job of discrediting himself?"
And for some reason having that opinion got my original post flagged and collapsed by default, even though I have a positive score...
As for the link, I mostly made a lazy search just to provide a link to "news articles, politicians, political pundits". If there was multiple people on HN claiming he was not going to get charged by the US then I would expect to see similar opinion outside HN. I thus tested the theory.
I have no idea why the poster above you is choosing to attack him specifically, though.
A common theme for a while was that Assange was just attention seeking and/or using the excuse of extradition to the US as a way to avoid facing justice in Sweden.
I think he should be in court while the accusers plead their case. Ellsberg beat the government in court afterall.
The only alternative is to abolish the courts and legal system and let people get a free pass since the system is not perfect.
International law is incredibly complicated. It's up to the countries involved to make the decision in addition to whether or not extradition makes sense. You don't have to agree with that but once again- what is your alternative?
In China it's against the law to publicly criticise the government. Should the US extradite people to China to face the penalties for violating that law?
Depends. But sometimes yes. "Criminal activity" is often times country specific.
USA
China
Russia
and their respective allies / blocs ?