Ecuador Hands Over Julian Assange's Belongings To US (bbc.com) 227
Slashdot reader Joce640k shares a report from the BBC: Ecuador has begun giving the U.S. some of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange's possessions left behind following his stay in its London embassy. The material includes manuscripts, legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment. Mr Assange's lawyer said the move was "completely unprecedented in the history of asylum." "Ecuador is committing a flagrant violation of the most basic norms of the institution of asylum by handing over all the asylee's personal belongings indiscriminately to the country that he was being protected from," added lawyer Aitor Martinez. WikiLeaks' Editor-in-Chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson, said that there was "no doubt" that Ecuador had "tampered" with the belongings it had sent to the U.S.
Oh the irony (Score:4, Insightful)
turns out he doesn't like it when his belongings are given to others.
Re: (Score:2)
But why would the US even want his personal belongings? Seems kind of creepy for the US even to request them. It would seem to make more sense to send them to Australia. He isn't American. He's Australian.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's dumbfuckery. To pretend that personal possessions are the same thing as mass criminality, war crimes and corruption.
Dumb.
If you get thrown out of someones house, it shouldn't come a surprise that your stuff gets thrown out too, even if you where initially welcome.
Re:That's not irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get thrown out of someones house, it shouldn't come a surprise that your stuff gets thrown out too, even if you where initially welcome.
Thrown out in the trash, maybe. But given to your enemy?
If they were upright, they'd give it back to Assange himself to put into storage or whatever. Or to let him decide whether to throw it away (and shredder the confidential documents), if he dosen't have the money for storage, nor family members to take care of it.
Re:That's not irony. (Score:4, Funny)
Thrown out in the trash, maybe. But given to your enemy?
Maybe the USA promised to return the stuff to him the next time he visits their lovely country?
Re:That's not irony. (Score:4, Insightful)
There may be legal ramifications to this. Documents like medical records and communications with his legal representatives are protected in many jurisdictions.
In the UK it may help him argue against extradition to the US on the grounds that his rights will be violated (based on behaviour of the US to date) and that he won't get a fair trial now they have those documents.
In the US I'm not an expert but isn't merely obtaining privileged communications with legal representatives grounds to have the case thrown out?
It's also likely that the UN will object again, which has little practical effect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a really good point. Judging from how your post is moderated it is seditious to even mention that Assange has rights.
However because he was making an effort to defend *everybodies* rights it's alright to trample Assange's rights in the court of the media circus. Knowing the laws he is subject too, with the full weight of the state upon him is where all of us can go.
I hope you are right, this is not going to a good place, it's like 1930s Germany.
Re: That's not irony. (Score:3)
Why is this modded 'troll'? Slashdot has become a parody.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I've got a stalker who uses all their mod points on me. 100% troll mods.
Re: That's not irony. (Score:2)
That's shit. Sorry man.
Re: (Score:3)
I've got the same thing with someone following me around and modding my stuff as overrated. But the jokes on him. I agree that most of my stuff is overrated, but then I have a very high option of myself.
If I was you, I would just sit back and enjoy the fact that I'm living rent free in someones head.
Re: That's not irony. (Score:2)
+1overrated
Re: (Score:3)
In the US I'm not an expert but isn't merely obtaining privileged communications with legal representatives grounds to have the case thrown out?
Not by itself. If a document is illegally obtained it can't be used as evidence in a trial and any evidence obtained because of that illegally obtained evidence (such as securing a search warrant) would also be inadmissible. If illegally obtained evidence were used in a trial and it was later found out it becomes grounds to have the current proceedings declared a mistrial or in the case of a convicting would be grounds for an appeal. A mistrial could lead to a new criminal proceeding, dropped charges, or a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As a person (non government) you cannot give or throw away the things left by others in your house. You need to make every (reasonable) effort to return them, according to your local regulations. (can be different from country to country, etc) In some cases you have to send formal/registered mail, store for a minimum duration of time... Think of landlords and tenants (some landlords have learned that the hard way).
Re: (Score:2)
Thrown out in the trash, maybe. But given to your enemy?
Not given, but sold. You can bet there was some hard negotiating going on. I smell a reduction in banana tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's not irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
So why are they not handing it over to the UK and or the local trash company?
Them turning it over to the US and not even Sweden just proves there's good reason to suspect the US pulled something and is after Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get is how you know the US has always wanted to get Assange, yet you're willing to so quickly confuse cause with effect. [apnews.com] And take the word of a CIA tool who's biggest evidence against Assange is...a short clip of him skateboarding, badly, when he's been under effecti
Re: (Score:3)
That's the other thing, Ecuador's willingness to assume that the US has rights to his crap in the first place also makes me doubt that we know the whole story about him getting ejected.
My guess is that they were trying to cook up an excuse that would make him look bad because they were getting pressured, probably in trade.
Re: (Score:2)
That would explain everything. I have no doubt whatsoever that his expulsion from the embassy was a requirement for the US to sign off on this (and nothing gets approved in the IMF without the US's approval).
Re: (Score:2)
Half of Americans are dishonest disingenuous hypocritical scumbag fucks that dont give a fuck how bad they look so long as they can signal their devoid as fuck virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's not irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
They do, and that's not the big issue here.
Why did Equador chose to throw Assange out (to the British)
Why did Equador not give the items to the British? That's very odd, and not the norm, and is the problem here.
It's almost as if Equador has done a deal with the US behind closed doors. Now, you should be scared about that, as it sets a VERY dangerous precedent for any asylum seeker, _irrespective_ if a crime was committed or not.
Re:That's not irony. (Score:4, Insightful)
He was kicked out because he posted some information that embarrassed the president of Ecuador.
When you are dependent on a host for your security don't piss them off.
Re: (Score:2)
Allegedly posted. After Ecuador had already hopped in bed with the CIA and cut off Assange's internet access - and primary contact with the outside world while under effective house arrest - for bullshit reasons. [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why did Equador chose to throw Assange out (to the British)
Who was a very poorly behaved guest. Hence he was thrown out.
Now, you should be scared about that, as it sets a VERY dangerous precedent for any asylum seeker, _irrespective_ if a crime was committed or not.
No, if a guest is f'ing around with embassy computers in an illegal manner getting throw out is a very appropriate response. When you are a guest, especially one seeking asylum, act grateful not entitled and self centered.
Re: That's not irony. (Score:3)
Equador is a shithole country.
Freedom to Assange!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there was a deal. Here it is: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/03/11/ecuador-pr1972-imf-executive-board-approves-eff-for-ecuador [imf.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. When every last official from the Bush and Obama Administrations are in the Hague docket for war crimes, then we can talk about the impropriety of guessing passwords and the consequences whistleblowers should face.
After his internet access was cut off for horseshit reasons [apnews.com] - decrying the arrest of a Catalan independence leader. Funny how that fact is always le
Poor cat (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Saddam was already dead when they pitched him in the sea.
US wants Assange's skateboard? (Score:2)
Why Do They Need His Phone? (Score:1, Informative)
Don't they already have Seth Rich's email address?
What part of "withdrawn" doesn't he understand? (Score:2, Troll)
I could understand his complaints if Ecuador was extending asylum to him. However, Ecuador had withdrawn their asylum.
I wonder if he regrets acting like an entitled child and rivaling history's best asshats?
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if he regrets acting like an entitled child and riling history's best asshats?
Your spelling corrected.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
you cannot withdraw asylum.
what the Ecuadorian president has done is illegal.
i am amazed at just how little people understand that there is no legal basis for any of his treatment from start to finish - except perhaps breach of bail, for a situation he was never charged for, and that the UK have said they would never accept in future. He should never have been on house arrest in the first place.
then again, a good portion of posters on here are going to be government employees here to shitpost bullshit and m
Re: What part of "withdrawn" doesn't he understand (Score:1)
you cannot withdraw asylum.
what the Ecuadorian president has done is illegal.
So you're an expert on Ecuadorian law? Ok then, show me where this violates Ecuador's legal code.
As for the "article," Assange wasn't hiding from the US, he was hiding from the Brits and the Swedes.
Re: (Score:1)
it's international law, not Ecuadorian law.
if you think he was hiding from the swedes (who let him leave their country, then immediately put out an illegal european arrest warrant) and the english (who are nothing more than the country he happened to be in when the illegal EAW was issued) then you are completely uninformed.
The ONLY issue stopping his return to Sweden was the promise he would not be extradited to the U.S illegally - which they actually did to some other people.
Please - get informed, and not
Perfectly legal to revoke asylum (Score:2)
it's international law
No its not. Asylum can be revoked for numerous reasons, one common reason is committing a crime that can be punished by a prison sentence. Assange is reported by Ecuador as having hacked their embassy computers as a guest. That seems to reach the required threshold. There may be other criminal acts as well. Again, this is just one area where revocations can be issued.
Re: (Score:3)
To add to your clarification, what is called "international law" isn't the same as the legal code within a sovereign nation, as explained by this paragraph from the Wikipedia article on international law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law [wikipedia.org]:
Did you notice you said the same thing as me? (Score:2)
No, you're wrong. It is international law, but withdrawing asylum status can be legal under certain circumstances
You are basically restating what I said, my "you're wrong" was referring to the notion that asylum cannot be withdrawn given certain circumstance.
the main reason why Slashdot has become so ridiculously useless and uninformative is that there are so many people like you and the original poster on it
Says the person who had a reading comprehension failure and then went on to make the same point as me.
who don't even bother to Google the simplest facts and voice their opinions on issues they obviously have no clue about.
Lets add bad guesses to your reading comprehension problems. Where do you think my example of committing a crime that can be punished by a prison sentence came from? That was from googling and a reading up on the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, so you are a stupid and gullible person. Assange always offered to return to Sweden as long as they promised not to hand him over to the United States. Sweden always refused to do so, which means the entire plan was to get him into US custody the entire time.
Even if you think Assange was lying, such a promise would have meant Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant him asylum and he would have en
Re: What part of "withdrawn" doesn't he understand (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeating the same baseless tautology doesn't make it true.
Which is in short, insulting to the intelligence of the listener. Sweden has both helped the CIA with their torture program [hrw.org] and gone to great lengths to have suspects arrested in non extradition countries and, as soon as they are in
Re: (Score:3)
They have investigated a murderer by phone before charging. There is no arrest wanted, so the EAW is by definition illegal. And the foreign minister can give the promise even though the law courts cannot, it's called the balance of power. You moron.
There is currently no swedish arrest warrant for Assange neither local nor european. The paperwork for a request for an arrest was handed by the prosecutor to swedish court yesterday. The word you're looking for is separation of powers, and from swedish, the term would be: "minister rule" which is forbidden under swedish law.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no arrest wanted, so the EAW is by definition illegal.
The legality of the EAW was assessed by the British court and determined to be lawfully issued.
http://ukscblog.com/case-comme... [ukscblog.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, so you are a stupid and gullible person. Assange always offered to return to Sweden as long as they promised not to hand him over to the United States. Sweden always refused to do so, which means the entire plan was to get him into US custody the entire time.
If you ask a country , any country, not to extradite you to some place, when there hasn't even been an extradition request, any country will tell you to bugger off. He's accused of rape. He has no right to demand any conditions to face charges.
Re: (Score:2)
When that country has a history of giving people to the CIA to be tortured [hrw.org] and going to great lengths to arrest someone in a non-extradition country and then interrogate them for weeks on end with no lawyer or outside contact for an unrelated crime in an unrelated cou
Re: (Score:2)
It was always about destroying Assange and Wikileaks. I am not so sure whether the US were going to pull in Assange if they got the chance, at the time when Assange sought refuge in the embassy. He was in danger but what exactly was going to happen, I'm not sure it was in any way fixed. See for instance what Fred Burton of Stratfor said in a leaked mail in 2010: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/... [wikileaks.org]
Re: What part of "withdrawn" doesn't he understand (Score:4, Interesting)
"the entire plan was to get him into US custody the entire time."
After all these years, none the conspiracy nuts can put together a coherent explanation of why it would be easier to extradite from the UK to Sweden and then extradite from Sweden to the US rather than extradite from the UK directly to the US.
Very occasionally someone will try to claim that not being charged with a crime in the UK is some sort of obstacle to extradition to the US, but they never account for a) that doesn't seem to be an obstacle to extradition to Sweden in their theory and b) that's not a requirement for extradition anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
After all these years you and the other Assange haters are the conspiracy theorist whackjobs, continuing to pretend that getting Assange into US custody wasn't the plan the entire time. Even Russia Madcow has pulled her head out of her butt on this as the US is threate
Re: What part of "withdrawn" doesn't he understand (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't know Swedish law. Assange didn't offer to return to Sweden however he gave his word to return to Sweden to be questioned if requested. He didn't do that when the request came so instead Sweden asked the UK to extradite him, the UK legal system then looked at it and Assange suddenly realized he was in trouble.
Requesting asylum to avoid being charged for sexual assault and/or rape wouldn't look good so a story about the whole thing being a charade to be extradited to the US was concocted, completely ridiculous for someone with a brain and the ability to search for facts.
If the USA wanted to extradite Assange via Sweden they could have done it before, at the time of the alleged rape. It was known that he would be there, he didn't hide his presence in any way or form.
It is easier for the US to extradite him from their very close partner the UK. Look it up.
If the USA wanted to extradite Assange from the UK they could have done it after he arrived there after visiting Sweden. Again his presence was known.
Not understanding the Swedish law (as noted above) in that the thing requested isn't possible to give before the fact. This is because a case (even extradition case) have to be decided from the facts presented at the time they are presented. Nobody can legally provide any such guarantee, simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
As with another poster, the conspiracy theories about extradition to Sweden to get to the US never made any sense to me. The UK extradition treaty with the US is much more favorable to the US than the Swedish one and always was.
As we see directly at this point, the US wants him before he's sent to Sweden. Which directly proves the conspiracy theorists were full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorance is neat that way. The UK didn't have a pretext to arrest Assange - Sweden does.
Always ignoring the fact Sweden turned prisoners over to the CIA [hrw.org] to be tortured and went to great lengths to arrest [theguardian.com] a suspect in another country and then, when in Swedish custody, promptly interr
Re: (Score:2)
More than you.
Sure he did [thelocal.se] as long as they would promise not to hand him over the US. Sweden has always refused to do so. Which tells anyone not waiting breathlessly for Saddam's WMD's to turn up that this was never about an alleged rape. Yes, that link repeats the canard that Sweden can't make a statement based on the facts at hand or be bothered to uphold international treaties it has signed.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, so you are a stupid and gullible person.
Your post makes some good points, but you weaken it by opening with an ad hominem attack. Reread you post without that sentence and I think you'll agree it reads better.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. For one, it's not an insult when it's true. Anyone buying the second rate propaganda on Syria, Venezuela, Assange, Wikileaks, Russia etc etc is objectively both stupid and gullible as they learned nothing from the lies told about Iraq. For another, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. But you can make them more reticent to promote their cult in public due to fear
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because even if they could withdraw asylum (and I am pretty sure the international conventions regarding asylum say you can't once it's granted unless the primary cause of granting it changes, eg. regime change in the country you ran away from) they have now chosen to steal his personal belongings, including things like medical records, and giving them away to a (not so) random third party.
Look at it like this. A friend of yours asks you to let one of their friends crash on your couch for a while, just unti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not well versed in Ecuadorian legal matters, but are you suggesting that it is legal in Ecuador to just take another person's belongings because you want to?
Asylum does not mean "Act like a crazy person" (Score:1, Troll)
Did Assange make an effort to return his hosts' favor by making himself useful while at the embassy? He could have lent his skills to advising on Ecuadorian communications and Internet access, or even just being the IT guy for the embassy itself. What "series of disputes" with embassy staff alluded to in his bio caused them to make the unusual step of siccing the local police on him?
Re:Asylum does not mean "Act like a crazy person" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Asylum does not mean "Act like a crazy person" (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please. Stop looking for conspiracies where there are none. Ecuador went through elections in 2017 and since the change in government there has been an endless string of threats to revoke his asylum, cut him off from the outside, and general disagreement with Assange. You don't need any external help when you buy a new house that comes with an incumbent roommate who you don't get along with.
His days were numbered as of 19th Feb 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
He posted information that embarrassed the new president of Ecuador within days of him taking office. What surprises me is that anyone thought they wouldn't kick him out after that.
Re: (Score:2)
The threats were to signal to the US
Oh stop it. The USA has been providing aid to Ecuador non-stop since the 60s with the exception of 2015, and even then a token few hundred k were sent over. Even during the period of Correa presidency, though greatly reduced during that time. It's no secret that Correa hated the USA, it's largely why Assange claimed asylum there in the first place. But that was a single president in the history of a two countries which otherwise had close relationships. The trend for foreign aid started dropping years befor
Worst example is one skateboarding video (Score:2)
And that's after Ecuador cut off his internet access for bullshit reasons, cutting off Assange's interactions with the outside world. Would you be interested in buying some oceanfront property in Kansas? If you could send me a copy of your SSN and birth certificate I could cut you in on a sweetheart deal...
That still smells a lot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Law and custom are very different things. How you behave when getting asylum makes a huge difference in how you are treated.
Encryption (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
imperialism (Score:3)
It has to fall before this Assange stiff can end.
Barr can block prosecution (Score:1)
Dept of Justice seems to be a single point of failure. If Barr refuses to comply with the court, Barr is the one who issues the order to arrest Barr. The States have their own systems, but those prosecutors work under Barr.
This is why Cohen gets prosecuted, but Trump doesn't.
So who exactly will prosecute Julian Assange for fronting Russia's attack on the US election? (And from the Trump Jr / Assange communications, its clear he had motive and knowledge of what he was doing)... Barr?
Barr the same guy that re
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the House can impeach, but IIRC, only the Senate can actually remove an official from office. And good luck getting that with Republicans firmly controlling the Senate.
Never pull that head out (Score:1, Troll)
Trump has been vastly more confrontational and aggressive towards Russian than Obama ever was. Russiagate is the dumbest, most baseless conspiracy theory of all time.
Co conspirator #1 (Score:4, Insightful)
No he hasn't. He's blocked one set of extra sanctions, he's cancelled the nukes treaty stopping them deploying nukes, he handed them Syria on a plate. His oil sanctions benefit Russia, he even legalized asbestos products, who the f**k asked for that, the only commercial abstestos mines left are in Russia... oh right we see. US lungs can breath Russian asbestos.
He did a love in with Putin over the Mueller report just recently.
He tried to allow Russia to investigate Russian interference in the US elections. Remember the Helsinki meeting? Trying to put US diplomats under oath answering questions to Russian FSB. Sure the Republicans stopped him doing that, but FFS, the idea that a US President would force a US dipolmat to give away US secrets under penalty of perjury to Russian FSB investigators, so that Russia can decide if Russia did the 2016 hacking....
Changed the Republicans policy of "supply lethal weapons to Ukraine to defend against Russia" into "non-lethal weapons"...
@"Russiagate is the dumbest, most baseless conspiracy theory of all time"
You also don't seem to have noticed all the confessions, indictments and prosecutions....
Co-conspirator #1 in those prosecutions is still at large.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If you believe the 'journalism' done on what they call 'The Atlantic' these days, maybe you'll have fun on the InfoWars site.
Those were Donald Jr's copy (Score:2, Informative)
Atlantic is reporting emails Donald Jnr turned over during discovery here. You're busy doing a "fake news" attack against something Donald Jnr turned over that's not in dispute.
Likewise the details Cohen is revealing about Trump Tower Moscow.... deal was not cancelled.... confirmed by Trump Lawyer Guillani admitting the deal went on till at least Trump took office. Trump's own lawyer confirmed Trump's lie.
So even as Trump was telling you the 'Russian deal' was fake news, it was real, later confirmed by Trum
Trump Tower Moscow (Score:2, Informative)
I see you trying to spin a complex plot there... you do realize that nobody made Trump sign that deal for Trump Tower Moscow then lie about it to his supporters? Nobody twisted his arms there.
Flynn has confessed, Cohen has confessed, Manafort has been prosecuted, (remember blocking "*lethal* weapons for Ukraine"? Pro Moscow not Pro Ukraine lobyyist), the Felix Sater Trump Tower Moscow deal and the Russian government involvement is disclosed now. The contract has been released. Cater Page has been vindicate
Re: (Score:2)
Which was as much a nothingburger as the Trump Tower meeting where even the most hard core Russiagate cutlists admit that Don Jr. walked away empty handed.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean in both cases he tried to commit crimes by ended up being a failure instead?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a crime to accept dirt on a an election opponent that's freely offered to you. That's called opposition research, grasshopper, and it's something every political campaign in history has done. If you think that's a crime, just how much time should Hillary serve for actually accepting dirt on Trump from Ukrainians? Or not only 'colluding with foreign intelligence agents' to swing an election, but paying them to do
Re: (Score:2)
and then to a few good men 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you old enough to think that the New York Times was run by shit people for publishing the Pentagon Papers?
Re: (Score:2)
Julian Assange did some subjectively good things - it really depends on which side of it you're looking at.
Julian Assange is also an arrogant narcissist.
Those two facts are not mutually exclusive. Assange can definitely do good things AND be, quote, a piece of shit as a person.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a start.People who do great things are weird. People can be pretty bad in one respect and pretty good in another. That is how I used to see it but now I think I was compromising because I was trying too hard to be (seen as) reasonable.
The main problem is that you're still looking where you are told to look. In this story Assange's character is only a minor factor. It's like the skateboard story. You see the movie of him on his skateboard with a story of him misbehaving and it sounds half conv
Re: (Score:2)
That's also a mindless repetition of character assassination crafted by the CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be quite obvious that he is not in any danger of the death penalty. The UK explicitly cannot extradite someone if there is a risk of a death sentence and it's hard to discern why anyone would think there was given the nature of the likely ch
Re: (Score:2)
The irony for me is that if rapey hadn't holed up in an embassy and just submitted himself to Swedish justice then he'd would been freed or served couple of years tops.
Sweden has played the USA's extradition bitch in the past, the UK has laws which make it harder to extradite to the USA than from Sweden. Ignoring history doesn't make you a sage, it makes you a dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
And pointing out the self-inflicted nature of his situation makes me a dumbass? Interesting.
Message to particularly silly AC (Score:4, Insightful)
Has he been slapped with USA citizenship, or do you really believe USAian laws apply to everyone the world over, regardless of location or citizenship?
Besides, the accusations that the USA has had years to invent are still laughable on their faces. They've got nothing substantial, so they have to make-do with make-believe. You apparently drank the kool-aid.
To me, this looks very much like Equador sucking USA cock for moniez. Really hard to make anything else of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the US said so, it isn't a new thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the joke - one of the things he's accused of doing in Sweden is having unprotected sex with a woman when she only consented to having sex with a condom for protection.
Re: (Score:2)
You're replying to someone that chose a name defining them as a rapist themselves. I'm not sure you're going to be able to stoop low enough to win this one.