Did Wikileaks release any info on the opponent?
Where did the allegations of 'tax havens' come from, I wonder?
Julian Assange will sleep easy tonight – assuming he sleeps at all – after Ecuadorian president Lenín Moreno Garcés retained power. Opposition candidate Guillermo Lasso, of the Creando Oportunidades, party, had pledged to evict Assange from Ecuador's London embassy within 30 days of an election win. Lasso's planned to find …
Where did the allegations of 'tax havens' come from, I wonder?
Yup. Given that any semblance of unbiased operation has now gone, you wonder who Wikileaks is targeting now to help one of their members evade justice, get a mortgage, force a raise or promotion - once you have people believe that you're doing something "journalistic" "for the community" the sky is the limit.
Wasn't Robert Mugabe in need of some help? Oh no, wait, he just jails people. Not a WL client then, I guess.
The thing that worried me the most about Assange's certainty that Wikileaks didn't get the DNC material from Russia was that they're supposed to have to super-anonymous submission system that prevents them from knowing who is giving them material. So either that's not true, or Assange lied when he had no clue who the source was (and if so, was he lying to cover for Trump, or cover for the Russians?)
Not that it wouldn't be trivial for Russia (or the CIA, or the Chinese, or Iran or Israel) to create some fake hacker like "Guccifer 2.0" to send the material to Wikileaks. If Russia didn't want the source known, they won't send it from a @kremlin.ru address, after all. If Assange thinks he could tell if whether it was really Russians behind a 'front man' submitting the material, lack of sunlight for five years has obviously driven him over the edge (I couldn't blame him, it would drive me batty as well!)
The thing that worried me the most about Assange's certainty that Wikileaks didn't get the DNC material from Russia
Right? He's so absurdly confident that it wasn't Russia the only way he could be sure was if the Russians had told him to say it wasn't Russia. Even if it was Russia he still hasn't done anything wrong in US law. The only other way it could be not Russia, and he knows for sure AND he's worried about US extradition is if he's more talented as a hacker than the record suggests he is; in which case he really does have something to worry about.
Thing about tradecraft is if your org is being infiltrated you're not supposed to know you're being infiltrated. Unless he's polygraphing everybody (which is itself massively unreliable) or subjecting them to fairly extensive torture - both of which are extremely unlikely - you're not *supposed* to know.
If you believe Assange he's already been caught in one honeytrap (CIA), two isn't exactly out of the question.
I suspect 'challenge' would have been a more suitable word than 'leave' - because to leave this country, he'd first have leave the embassy - at which point he'll be arrested.
Well... they could wrap him in plastic and pack him in a large box for shipping. Ship him UPS or Fed-Ex to the place of his choice. Label it as a proper diplomatic packet and no one will be the wiser.
I assume that any legitimate diplomat still has all the perks and benefits that come with the position, even when not stationed inside their embassy?
Surely then, if it's costing Ecuador money having Assange as an unwanted lodger for the past few years, they could put the embassy up for sale (as it's really nothing more than a flat) and just move further up the road? The ambassador and associated staff can just stroll up the street to their new lodgings, but Assange would either have to break cover and try and run to the new location without being spotted, or would be fair game for the police to go in and collect him the instant his current residence loses its diplomatic status?
> Surely then, if it's costing Ecuador money having Assange as an unwanted lodger for the past few years, they could put the embassy up for sale (as it's really nothing more than a flat) and just move further up the road?
They could, but it's far cheaper to simply say "There's the door, leave now or you'll be removed".
Either one would have a political price though, note that even the candidate that wants him gone said he'd try and find somewhere else that Assange could be moved to (quite how they'd achieve that is something else).
Simply evicting him is something that the opposition would always exploit (even if they secretly agreed with the decision). Even if they want him gone, it's not nearly as simple as booting him out. In theory, they could do it now, on the basis that they've got a full term to try and score back political points, but it'd still be risky.
It would have been hard to transfer him to another emabassy. South American countries generally recognise the convention of diplomatic asylum. However this isn't part of the Vienna Conventions, which are the global 'rules' covering diplomats and embassies - so it's something that only applies if both governments agree. And our government don't, along with most others.
In South America it's common practise for the outgoing government during a coup to hole up in various embassies, then (often delicate) negotiations over the next few months get them out of the country and into exile. Obviously you might really want to kill the ex el Presidente when you've just taken over, as that should make your new regime more secure. But, on the other hand, some ambitious colonel might soon be pitching you out on your ear, so having a way to get out suddenly looks a lot more attractive.
Hence in South America, Assange would have sat in the Ecuadorian embassy for a few months, and a deal would probably have been quietly done to get him to Ecuador. In this country the government can't do that, as there's a court order to send him to Sweden.
On a side note, if he stays there much longer, he might get his own clause in the Brexit deal. If we don't stay in the European Arrest Warrant system, then I don't know if the outstanding warrant would still apply (as the law was valid when it was issued), or if Sweden would have to apply for extradition. So there's something for him to look forward to...
This post has been deleted by its author
"his use of Ecuador's embassy is costing the country money it can ill-afford."
So why aren't they charging him rent? It's not as he's still paying hotel bills or anything. If Assange is short of cash, maybe he could rent his home out foe some income and pass some of that on to the Ecuadorians.
Because the simple folk are much better known for their desire to conform than their ability to think independently; when the pack leader du jour reaches for a stone, everyone else is eager to do the same lest they be judged different and cast out of the mob. Considering Assange is a) being continually dragged back into the limelight for another cheap potshot by the media and b) somewhat difficult to look up to these days and that c) the only thing mobs are good at is either cheering or lynching whoever crosses their path, the latter becomes inevitable. Hari Seldon could probably even point out the specific equation that makes it so.
This post has been deleted by its author
UK Home Secretary Priti Patel today signed an order approving the extradition of Julian Assange to America, where he faces espionage charges for sharing secret government documents.
It also distributed secret files revealing the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and sensitive communications from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, during the 2016 US presidential election.
Julian Assange has all but lost his fight against extradition from Britain to America after the UK Supreme Court said his case "did not raise an arguable point of law."
The former WikiLeaks chief's future now rests in the tender hands of British Home Secretary Priti Patel, who must formally decide whether or not to extradite him for trial in the US.
American prosecutors want the Australian in court over a multitude of espionage charges, including one alleging that he commissioned the cracking of a password protecting US Department of Defense files from unauthorized access.
Former couch-surfing world record contender Julian Assange has had his Ecuadorian citizenship revoked.
An administrative court in Quito, Ecuador cited irregularities in the naturalization process – including the use of different signatures, potential document alterations, failure to pay fees, and a failure to reside in the country – as reasons the grant of citizenship was invalid. The court also assessed Assange's application interview as "undue and illegal".
Assange was notified he had lost his citizenship in a letter responding to a claim from Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility. His less than happy lawyer, Carlos Poveda, said he will file for an annulment of the decision.
Julian Assange has won a technical victory in his ongoing battle against extradition from the UK to the United States, buying him a few more months in the relative safety of Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh.
Today at London's High Court, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Burnett approved a question on a technical point of law, having refused Assange immediate permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. The WikiLeaker's lawyers had asked for formal permission to pose this legal conundrum about Assange's likely treatment in US prisons to the Supreme Court:
Julian Assange will be sent stateside for trial on criminal charges after the US government won an appeal against an earlier court order that released him from the threat of extradition.
The former WikiLeaks editor-in-chief lost the latest stage of his attempt to avoid being sent to the US after the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Holroyde accepted US assurances that he would be treated humanely in their prisons.
The High Court has quashed a previous court order "freeing" Assange*, meaning the case will now join the growing pile on Home Secretary Priti Patel's desk awaiting her decision on whether to extradite.
Julian Assange's psychiatrist misled a judge when he delivered a report stating the WikiLeaks founder would be suicidal if extradited to the US for trial, lawyers for the US government have said.
Barrister James Lewis QC told the Lord Chief Justice yesterday that crucial reports were flawed because it did not clearly state that Assange had fathered two children while hiding in Ecuador's London embassy.
The WikiLeaker-in-chief is wanted in the US. He stands accused of hacking into US military databases and publishing classified docs. Although he won an initial legal bid to avoid extradition, the sole reason District Judge Vanessa Baraitser did not extradite him was because he would be suicidal if sent abroad. At the time the judge described that as "a well-informed opinion carefully supported by evidence."
Analysis Julian Assange has lost a legal scrap in court, this time over the US government's attempt to expand its grounds for extraditing him from England to stand trial in America.
Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mrs Justice Farbey in London's High Court, this week overruled previous legal findings that said an expert report from Assange's psychiatrist claiming the WikiLeaker was suicidal at the prospect of trial in the United States could not be challenged on appeal. That decision, made after a pre-hearing application by the US government ahead of a full appeal scheduled later this year, is bad news for Assange's camp.
Julian Assange will remain in a British prison for now after the US government won permission to appeal against a January court ruling that freed him from extradition to America.
News of the appeal came as the US Department of Justice offered Assange a deal that would keep him out of the notoriously cruel US supermax prisons, according to The Times.
The High Court this morning granted the US permission to appeal against a ruling by Westminster Magistrates' Court that Assange couldn't be extradited because he would commit suicide if handed over to the Americans. The WikiLeaker-in-chief's legal team lost on every other legal ground against extradition.
The US Dept of Justice will continue pushing for the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday.
This comes after a UK judge blocked Assange’s shipment to the States on mental health grounds last month. As a result, the US government faced a deadline of the end of this week to challenge the ruling. Today’s announcement makes it plain that the decision will be challenged.
That deadline represented just the latest in a long series of possible resolution points for the case against the hacker and online publisher of leaked documents, the previous one being the exit of President Trump from the White House with some expecting him to pardon Assange on the way out the door. He decided not to in the end.
Accused hacker and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US to stand trial, Westminster Magistrates' Court has ruled.
District Judge Vanessa Baraitser told Assange this morning that there was no legal obstacle to his being sent to the US, where he faces multiple criminal charges under America's Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act over his WikiLeaks website.
Assange is a suicide risk and the judge decided not to order his extradition to the US, despite giving a ruling in which she demolished all of his legal team's other arguments against extradition.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022