Toronto Escorts

Ecuador to turf Assange

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,444
113
Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno traveled to London on Friday for the ostensible purpose of speaking at the 2018 Global Disabilities Summit (Moreno has been confined to a wheelchair since being shot in a 1998 robbery attempt). The concealed, actual purpose of the President’s trip is to meet with British officials to finalize an agreement under which Ecuador will withdraw its asylum protection of Julian Assange, in place since 2012, eject him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then hand over the WikiLeaks founder to British authorities.

Moreno’s itinerary also notably includes a trip to Madrid, where he will meet with Spanish officials still seething over Assange’s denunciation of human rights abuses perpetrated by Spain’s central government against protesters marching for Catalonia independence. Almost three months ago, Ecuador blocked Assange from accessing the internet, and Assange has not been able to communicate with the outside world ever since. The primary factor in Ecuador’s decision to silence him was Spanish anger over Assange’s tweets about Catalonia.

Presidential decree signed on July 17 by Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno, outlining his trip to London and Madrid

A source close to the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry and the President’s office, unauthorized to speak publicly, has confirmed to the Intercept that Moreno is close to finalizing, if he has not already finalized, an agreement to hand over Assange to the UK within the next several weeks. The withdrawal of asylum and physical ejection of Assange could come as early as this week. On Friday, RT reported that Ecuador was preparing to enter into such an agreement.

The consequences of such an agreement depend in part on the concessions Ecuador extracts in exchange for withdrawing Assange’s asylum. But as former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa told the Intercept in an interview in May, Moreno’s government has returned Ecuador to a highly “subservient” and “submissive” posture toward western governments.

It is thus highly unlikely that Moreno – who has shown himself willing to submit to threats and coercion from the UK, Spain and the U.S. – will obtain a guarantee that the U.K. not extradite Assange to the U.S., where top Trump officials have vowed to prosecute Assange and destroy WikiLeaks.

The central oddity of Assange’s case – that he has been effectively imprisoned for eight years despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime – is virtually certain to be prolonged once Ecuador hands him over to the U.K. Even under the best-case scenario, it appears highly likely that Assange will continue to be imprisoned by British authorities.

The only known criminal proceeding Assange currently faces is a pending 2012 arrest warrant for “failure to surrender” – basically a minor bail violation charge that arose when he obtained asylum from Ecuador rather than complying with bail conditions by returning to court for a hearing on his attempt to resist extradition to Sweden.

That charge carries a prison term of three months and a fine, though it is possible that the time Assange has already spent in prison in the UK could be counted against that sentence. In 2010, Assange was imprisoned in Wandsworth Prison, kept in isolation, for 10 days until he was released on bail; he was then under house arrest for 550 days at the home of a supporter.

Assange’s lawyer, Jen Robinson, told the Intercept that he would argue that all of that prison time already served should count toward (and thus completely fulfill) any prison term imposed on the “failure to surrender” charge, though British prosecutors would almost certainly contest that claim. Assange would also argue that he had a reasonable, valid basis for seeking asylum rather than submitting to UK authorities: namely, well-grounded fear that he would be extradited to the U.S. for prosecution for the act of publishing documents.

Beyond that minor charge, British prosecutors could argue that Assange’s evading of legal process in the UK was so protracted, intentional and malicious that it rose beyond mere “failure to surrender” to “contempt of court,” which carries a prison term of up to two years. Just on those charges alone, then, Assange faces a high risk of detention for another year or even longer in a British prison.

Currently, that is the only known criminal proceeding Assange faces. In May, 2017, Swedish prosecutors announced they were closing their investigation into the sexual assault allegations due to the futility of proceeding in light of Assange’s asylum and the time that has elapsed.

The far more important question that will determine Assange’s future is what the U.S. Government intends to do. The Obama administration was eager to prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents, but ultimately concluded that there was no way to do so without either also prosecuting newspapers such as the New York Times and the Guardian which published the same documents, or create precedents that would enable the criminal prosecution of media outlets in the future.

Indeed, it is technically a crime under U.S. law for anyone – including a media outlet – to publish certain types of classified information. Under U.S. law, for instance, it was a felony for the Washington Post’s David Ignatius to report on the contents of telephone calls, intercepted by the NSA, between then National Security Adviser nominee Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, even though such reporting was clearly in the public interest since it proved Flynn lied when he denied such contacts.

That the Washington Post and Ignatius – and not merely their sources – violated U.S. criminal law by revealing the contents of intercepted communications with a Russian official is made clear by the text of 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code, which provides (emphasis added):

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates … or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes … any classified information … obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

But the U.S. Justice Department has never wanted to indict and prosecute anyone for the crime of publishing such material, contenting themselves instead to prosecuting the government sources who leak it. Their reluctance has been due to two reasons: first, media outlets would argue that any attempts to criminalize the mere publication of classified or stolen documents is barred by the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment, a proposition the DOJ has never wanted to test; second, no DOJ has wanted as part of its legacy the creation of a precedent that allows the U.S. Government to criminally prosecute journalists and media outlets for reporting classified documents.

But the Trump administration has made clear that they have no such concerns. Quite the contrary: last April, Trump’s then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, now his Secretary of State, delivered a deranged, rambling, highly threatening broadside against WikiLeaks. Without citing any evidence, Pompeo decreed that WikiLeaks is “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” and thus declared: “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.”

The long-time right-wing Congressman, now one of Trump’s most loyal and favored cabinet officials, also explicitly rejected any First Amendment concerns about prosecuting Assange, arguing that while WikiLeaks “pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice . . . they may have believed that, but they are wrong.”

Pompeo then issued this bold threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions has similarly vowed not only to continue and expand the Obama DOJ’s crackdown on sources, but also to consider the prosecution of media outlets that publish classified information. It would be incredibly shrewd for Sessions to lay the foundation for doing so by prosecuting Assange first, safe in the knowledge that journalists themselves – consumed with hatred for Assange due to personal reasons, professional jealousies, and anger over the role they believed he played in 2016 in helping Hillary Clinton lose – would unite behind the Trump DOJ and in support of its efforts to imprison Assange.

During the Obama years, it was a mainstream view among media outlets that prosecuting Assange would be a serious danger to press freedoms. Even the Washington Post Editorial Page, which vehemently condemned WikiLeaks, warned in 2010 that any such prosecution would “criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk” all media outlets. When Pompeo and Sessions last year issued their threats to prosecute Assange, former Obama DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller insisted that no such prosecution could ever succeed:

For years, the Obama DOJ searched for evidence that Assange actively assisted Chelsea Manning or other sources in the hacking or stealing of documents – in order to prosecute them for more than merely publishing documents – and found no such evidence. But even that theory – that a publisher of classified documents can be prosecuted for assisting a source – would be a severe threat to press freedom, since journalists frequently work in some form of collaboration with sources who remove or disclose classified information. And nobody has ever presented evidence that WikiLeaks conspired with whomever hacked the DNC and Podesta email inboxes to effectuate that hacking.

But there seems little question that, as Sessions surely knows, large numbers of U.S. journalists – along with many, perhaps most, Democrats – would actually support the Trump DOJ in prosecuting Assange for publishing documents. After all, the DNC sued WikiLeaks in April for publishing documents – a serious, obvious threat to press freedom – and few objected.

And it was Democratic Senators such as Dianne Feinstein who, during the Obama years, were urging the prosecution of WikiLeaks, with the support of numerous GOP Senators. There is no doubt that, after 2016, support among both journalists and Democrats for imprisoning Assange for publishing documents would be higher than ever.

If the U.S. did indict Assange for alleged crimes relating to the publication of documents, or if they have already obtained a sealed indictment, and then uses that indictment to request that the U.K. extradite him to the U.S. to stand trial, that alone would ensure that Assange remains in prison in the U.K. for years to come.

Assange would, of course, resist any such extradition on the ground that publishing documents is not a cognizable crime and that the U.S is seeking his extradition for political charges that, by treaty, cannot serve as the basis for extradition. But it would take at least a year, and probably closer to three years, for U.K. courts to decide these extradition questions. And while all of that lingers, Assange would almost certainly be in prison, given that it is inconceivable that a British judge would release Assange on bail given what happened the last time he was released.

All of this means that it is highly likely that Assange – under his best-case scenario – faces at least another year in prison, and will end up having spent a decade in prison despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime. He has essentially been punished – imprisoned – by process.

And while it is often argued that Assange has only himself to blame, it is beyond doubt, given the Grand Jury convened by the Obama DOJ and now the threats of Pompeo and Sessions, that the fear that led Assange to seek asylum in the first place – being extradited to the U.S. and politically persecuted for political crimes – was well-grounded.

Assange, his lawyers and his supporters always said that he would immediately board a plane to Stockholm if he were guaranteed that doing so would not be used to extradite him to the U.S., and for years offered to be questioned by Swedish investigators inside the embassy in London, something Swedish prosecutors only did years later. Citing those facts, a United Nations panel ruled in 2016 that the actions of the U.K. government constituted “arbitrary detention” and a violation of Assange’s fundamental human rights.

But if, as seems quite likely, the Trump administration finally announces that it intends to prosecute Assange for publishing classified U.S. Government documents, we will be faced with the bizarre spectacle of U.S. journalists – who have spent the last two years melodramatically expressing grave concern over press freedom due to insulting tweets from Donald Trump about Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd or his mean treatment of Jim Acosta – possibly cheering for a precedent that would be the gravest press freedom threat in decades.

That precedent would be one that could easily be used to put them in a prison cell alongside Assange for the new “crime” of publishing any documents that the U.S. Government has decreed should not be published. When it comes to press freedom threats, such an indictment would not be in the same universe as name-calling tweets by Trump directed at various TV personalities.

When it came to denouncing due process denials and the use of torture at Guantanamo, it was not difficult for journalists to set aside their personal dislike for Al Qaeda sympathizers to denounce the dangers of those human rights and legal abuses. When it comes to free speech assaults, journalists are able to set aside their personal contempt for a person’s opinions to oppose the precedent that the government can punish people for expressing noxious ideas.

It should not be this difficult for journalists to set aside their personal emotions about Assange to recognize the profound dangers – not just to press freedoms but to themselves – if the U.S. Government succeeds in keeping Assange imprisoned for years to come, all due to its attempts to prosecute him for publishing classified or stolen documents. That seems the highly likely scenario once Ecuador hands over Assange to the U.K.
We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us
Contact the author:


https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21...-and-hand-him-over-to-the-uk-what-comes-next/
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
This is a travesty of justice, that the world seriously should not allow. Any further chest thumping by USA and UK that they have rule of law is absurd.
 

Allwomen247

New member
Jan 26, 2017
169
0
0
Good

Let Sweden have first go at him for the alleged rapes.

Then, Sweden can hand him over to the US.

Hope he made the most of his time learning Spanish at the Equadorean consulate, he’s going to need it at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He probably needs the Sun lol

Cheers
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Good

Let Sweden have first go at him for the alleged rapes.

Then, Sweden can hand him over to the US.

Hope he made the most of his time learning Spanish at the Equadorean consulate, he’s going to need it at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He probably needs the Sun lol

Cheers
Assange is not wanted for anything in Sweden.

USA want to punish the messenger. A free press and rule of law goes out the window.

USA is ranked 45 out of 180 countries for Press freedom.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
Good

Let Sweden have first go at him for the alleged rapes.

Then, Sweden can hand him over to the US.

Hope he made the most of his time learning Spanish at the Equadorean consulate, he’s going to need it at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He probably needs the Sun lol

Cheers
Trump probably wants to bring him back to make him the head of the NSA.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
This is a travesty of justice, that the world seriously should not allow. Any further chest thumping by USA and UK that they have rule of law is absurd.
I agree. It is a travesty that Ecuador has spent years protecting a guy from rape charges in Sweden.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,444
113
I agree. It is a travesty that Ecuador has spent years protecting a guy from rape charges in Sweden.

I believe the rape charge is now dead. Sweden decided not to bother, given the passage of time.

It is doubtful that Sweden will undergo the expense of an extradition proceeding for the minor offence of failure to appear for a court hearing.

So the issue becomes whether the US will file an extradition application with the UK to bring Assange to the States for trial for hacking and invasion of privacy. Which is interesting - because WHO benefited from the hacks??.... That's right - DJT. The very guy who very, very clearly DOESN'T want court proceedings wrt to the DNC hacks that Assange was involved in.

But OTOH, America has egg on its ass if it lets Assange simply flip the finger at American justice, disappear to a non extradition country (France for instance, like Polanski) and gloat like a goat about how he fucked America over and screwed up its presidential election and walked away with his tail in the air.

So what's DJT, Li'l Possum Sessions and Pompeo gonna do??!!!
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113

I believe the rape charge is now dead. Sweden decided not to bother, given the passage of time.

It is doubtful that Sweden will undergo the expense of an extradition proceeding for the minor offence of failure to appear for a court hearing.

So the issue becomes whether the US will file an extradition application with the UK to bring Assange to the States for trial for hacking and invasion of privacy. Which is interesting - because WHO benefited from the hacks??.... That's right - DJT. The very guy who very, very clearly DOESN'T want court proceedings wrt to the DNC hacks that Assange was involved in.

But OTOH, America has egg on its ass if it lets Assange simply flip the finger at American justice, disappear to a non extradition country (France for instance, like Polanski) and gloat like a goat about how he fucked America over and screwed up its presidential election and walked away with his tail in the air.

So what's DJT, Li'l Possum Sessions and Pompeo gonna do??!!!
Oh, come on. Nobody has ever accused Assange of Hacking anything. He offence is to publish incriminating information, for which he should be commended.

USA is ranked 45 out of 180 countries for Press freedom.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
Oh, come on. Nobody has ever accused Assange of Hacking anything. He offence is to publish incriminating information, for which he should be commended.

USA is ranked 45 out of 180 countries for Press freedom.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking
The Mueller indictments show Assange personally asking for the Clinton emails in order to screw with the dems.
He didn't hack them, but he did ask the Russians for them in order to screw with Clinton.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,444
113
Oh, come on. Nobody has ever accused Assange of Hacking anything. He offence is to publish incriminating information, for which he should be commended.

USA is ranked 45 out of 180 countries for Press freedom.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking
Conspiracy to hack and publish hacked documents.

Accessory after the fact.

Aiding and abetting.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Conspiracy to hack and publish hacked documents.

Accessory after the fact.

Aiding and abetting.
That is what journalists are supposed to do: expose the shady dealings of the ruling class.

There is a reason USA is #45 in press freedom.

I have posted several times that lawyers always have been eager (or is it oagre) to justify actions of the rulers, no matter how despicable. Hitlers and Stalins actions were completely justified and enthusiastically enforced by their lawyers.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,714
3,410
113
Conspiracy to hack and publish hacked documents.

Accessory after the fact.

Aiding and abetting.
Careful Oagre. All those leaks that come out of the WH and Congress could fall under that. And every media organization who publishs them.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
Careful Oagre. All those leaks that come out of the WH and Congress could fall under that. And every media organization who publishs them.
I know moral issues are really hard for you butler, but think about the difference between whistleblowing, or exposing illegal/immoral practices, with hacking or stealing secrets, like the watergate scandal.
Do you really think both are the same?
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,714
3,410
113
I know moral issues are really hard for you butler, but think about the difference between whistleblowing, or exposing illegal/immoral practices, with hacking or stealing secrets, like the watergate scandal.
Do you really think both are the same?
All Assange disclosed was corruption in the DNC as Clinton fixed the primary. I'd say that is a matter for the public to know about. Goes to character.

Wait if he does get extradited. The court case is going to divide the media and set the standard for generations. The internet has created a new paradigm. It was due to be tested in court.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,444
113
All Assange disclosed was corruption in the DNC as Clinton fixed the primary. I'd say that is a matter for the public to know about. Goes to character.

Wait if he does get extradited. The court case is going to divide the media and set the standard for generations. The internet has created a new paradigm. It was due to be tested in court.
Yup. One of those interesting questions.

Do you think the idiot president and his idiot Attorney-General will be able to figure their way through this one?... Or do you think that they'll just let Assange slip away and disappear?
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,444
113
Careful Oagre. All those leaks that come out of the WH and Congress could fall under that. And every media organization who publishs them.
I would have a lot more sympathy for Assange if he wasn't clearly working for Putin and doing whatever Putin thought tactically advantageous.

Under his original "sleeper" guise of independent whistleblower, the guy had a little of my sympathy. Maybe more than a little. But as a cover story for Russian cyber-warfare and imperialism, not so much.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
I would have a lot more sympathy for Assange if he wasn't clearly working for Putin and doing whatever Putin thought tactically advantageous.

Under his original "sleeper" guise of independent whistleblower, the guy had a little of my sympathy. Maybe more than a little. But as a cover story for Russian cyber-warfare and imperialism, not so much.
You are going all out Mccarthy. The commies are everywhere. Please give us a break!

Russian imperialism! What in the world is that? The only imperial power I can see is USA.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
All Assange disclosed was corruption in the DNC as Clinton fixed the primary. I'd say that is a matter for the public to know about. Goes to character.

Wait if he does get extradited. The court case is going to divide the media and set the standard for generations. The internet has created a new paradigm. It was due to be tested in court.
What corruption, it just exposed politics as usually done in the US.
There were no charges as a result, no crimes revealed and still accusations of any wrongdoing.
All it did was a watergate like attempt to make Clinton look dirty by hacking and stealing dem emails.

That shows that Assange in this case acted in a version of watergate, where secrets were stolen from a political opponent to imply they were dirty.
What makes this look much worse is that it appears that the Trump team worked with the 'enemy' to steal secrets from his political opponent.

I'm sure that the FBI, CIA et al would love to charge Assange with the hacking, the only question is whether Trump would try to pardon him for putting him in power.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,714
3,410
113
Yup. One of those interesting questions.

Do you think the idiot president and his idiot Attorney-General will be able to figure their way through this one?... Or do you think that they'll just let Assange slip away and disappear?
No idea. I really don't. The fun will come when the opposition has to choose a side as well. Both sides have championed and vilified him.
 
Toronto Escorts