Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Sues Ecuador For 'Violating His Rights' (sky.com)

Julian Assange is suing Ecuador's government for violating his "fundamental rights and freedoms," despite the fact he is still being sheltered in the country's UK embassy. From a report: It comes after Ecuador cut off communications for Mr Assange, who has been living inside the country's London embassy for more than six years. Baltasar Garzon, a lawyer for WikiLeaks, has arrived in Ecuador to launch the case, which is expected to be heard next week in a domestic court. WikiLeaks claims Mr Assange's access to the outside world has been "summarily cut off" and says Ecuador has threatened to remove the protection he has had since being given political asylum. The site said Ecuador's government has refused to allow a visit by Human Rights Watch general counsel Dinah PoKempner and prevented several meetings with Mr Assange's lawyers. A statement said: "Ecuador's measures against Julian Assange have been widely condemned by the human rights community."

225 comments

  1. Sue him back over treatment of his cat by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ecuador should sue him back over the way he is mistreating his cat.

    1. Re:Sue him back over treatment of his cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assange has to keep his distance to avoid being accused of cat rape.

    2. Re:Sue him back over treatment of his cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      #MeowToo

    3. Re:Sue him back over treatment of his cat by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Equador should sue the producers of the awful comedy Asylum for crimes against humanity.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Sue him back over treatment of his cat by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      Come on mods, surely one of you has a spare point to give to a good joke.

  2. It's stupid by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At this point it's unlikely he would be killed. He's now effectively been locked up. Why not just go to court and get it over with? He basically imprisoned himself and may end up still having to serve time if he leaves. What's the point?

    1. Re:It's stupid by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      The other imprisonment will be in a little concrete sensory deprivation box.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you just see what happened to Jamal Kashoggi? A guy with much more elite family ties than Julian Assange...got tortured to death and then chopped up into little pieces. I don't think Assange is trying to risk that.

    3. Re:It's stupid by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0, Troll

      What's the point?

      The point is to stand up for principles. He is being targeted by law enforcement because of his political activities, under pressure from the United States, by Sweden, a country that holds itself up as a champion of human rights. The United Kingdom is also caught up in the abuse and hypocrisy. Why else would they try to extradite someone for something (retroactive rape) that isn't even a crime in the UK?

    4. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the point?

      The point is that he can't be wrong. If he goes to Swedish court, gets fined (or even a couple years in jail) and doesn't "disappear", then that would suggest his panic was unjustified paranoia. Assange has built his life and social image on the assumption that the USA (among a long list) sees him as too dangerous to ignore, but that he's been outsmarting everyone. If he submits to authority (already a big no-no in his view) and they do not do anything beyond their obligations according to the law of the nation, that proves Assange a liar.

      The most effective thing any government can do to diminish Assange's influence is to treat him like they would anyone else. His own hyperbole will do the rest.

    5. Re:It's stupid by HarrySquatter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So his solution is to be annoying and to antagonize the people giving him sanctuary? Yeah, that sounds like a smart move...

    6. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Sweden?! Swedish prisons are better than most hotels, and the average sentence for 'rape' is less than 26 months.
      He would have had better treatment and been free long ago if he had just kept his bail in the first place.

    7. Re:It's stupid by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      ADX Florence

    8. Re:It's stupid by Iamthecheese · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, he would have been extradited to the US.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    9. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political Activities?

      Is shilling for Russia while Putin works to disassemble Western Democracy a legitimate political activity?

    10. Re:It's stupid by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      it's called a extradition treaty

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    11. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Sweden. There were absolutely no plans to ship him off to gitmo at all.

    12. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was never claimed that he raped anyone. However people have been successfully convicted of sexual assault for non consensual removal of a condom. It's certainly not something anyone with any respect would do, especially when they sleep around as much as Asange appears to have done.

    13. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he doesn't want to disappear into a US government black site never to be heard from again. No doubt a tiny cell with no windows and only a bucket with guards randomly pissing on you or stripping you naked and posing for pictures or just straight up torture. You know the kind of shit that is considered illegal in every civilised country on the planet that the US basically allowed in gitmo and no doubt a number of other undeclared facilities.

    14. Re:It's stupid by Megol · · Score: 2

      No there were no such plans. Getting an extradition from Sweden would prove difficult anyway.

    15. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like the guy in the Misery book.

      He was sheltered six years ago, but with a change of government at Equador, things are different and now they are trying to get rid of him.

    16. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It was never claimed that he raped anyone" - NOOOOOOT TRUUUUUUE. It definitely was intentionally conflated for DECADES now.

    17. Re:It's stupid by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      There is even a cliche for this:

      Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

    18. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      He pissed his principles down the drain the minute he became partisan and started working for the Russia, that turned him from whistleblower to foreign agent.

      As a foreign agent, trapped in a foreign country, he now needs to accept the consequences.

      At this point, Assange is about the least unprincipled person out there. His whole "thing" was leaking against America because of it's human rights abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan et. al. That was a reasonable thing to argue for, until he decided to become a puppet of Russia who is doing the EXACT same things in Syria that he was bitching about the US for in Iraq/Afghanistan. Furthermore, Russia routinely violates human rights, from murdering journalists, to beating people for being gay, to jailing opposition politicians, to carrying out nuclear and chemical assassinations on foreign soil.

      If he had principles, he'd be leaking about that shit, because the US has largely withdrawn from the world stage under Trump exactly as Assange wanted, so the idea that it's the great evil spreading it's tentacles no longer applies, that title firmly now belongs to Russia, so why isn't he leaking about that other than the fact he takes money from the Russian state for his RT show and such?

      Principled people don't take hush money to keep quiet about the causes they profess to care about.

    19. Re:It's stupid by ilguido · · Score: 1

      The point is that he can't be wrong. If he goes to Swedish court, gets fined (or even a couple years in jail) and doesn't "disappear", then that would suggest his panic was unjustified paranoia. [...]

      Not really. He is no more investigated in Sweden, so going to a Swedish court now is out of question (I think that they could reopen the investigation, but that is not the case right now). However, in the UK there is a warrant for his arrest, for skipping bail when the UK wanted to have him extradite to Sweden. So his "paranoia" is not completely unjustified, after all he is officially wanted by the UK, because Sweden investigated him without a charge. It is bit too much for an alleged improper sexual behaviour.

    20. Re:It's stupid by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      He pissed his principles down the drain the minute he became ...

      They are not "his" principles. They are OUR principles. You should not be so quick to abandon them. You may want them back someday.

    21. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's in the Ecuador embassy in London. He was "hunted" there by the the British police for skipping a court date related to his sexual misconduct charges in Sweden.

      Do any of you zealots bother to learn anything?

    22. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said there would be an extradition? He might just get lost on the way to Sweden...

      captcha: judicial

    23. Re:It's stupid by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No he wouldn't. It's far easier to extradite someone to the US from the UK than from Sweden, and nobody was even trying the former.

      Plus, you know, the US would benefit far more having a critic imprisoned for rape with a neutral country taking "credit" for that, than have a peaceful critic imprisoned without trial in the US for a crime that doesn't apply to any jurisdiction he might have committed it in.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    24. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is correct.
      The UK have no option but to arrest him should he step out of the embassy. The reason being is that if they failed to it would send a message that you can escape justice by breaking bail.

      Not a country in the world will give the leeway to break bail and walk away.

    25. Re:It's stupid by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, that was done by Saudi Arabia, not Sweden. Easy to confuse them, I know, one's a liberal democracy with no substantial record of abusing human rights, the other a theocratic dictatorship that chops the hands off people for stealing apples. I mean, they're almost the same when you put it like that, but no, they're not actually the same.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    26. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There have been such cases before when Sweden (my home) has extradited people to countries on dubious warrants and where the accused have subsequently suffered and even been killed. There is no reason to think Sweden would have offered him any particular protection from a US extradition warrant.

      However, since it has been several years since Sweden dropped the investigation into sexual misconduct by him, there is no longer any outstanding warrant to extradite him from the UK to Sweden. There is, however, the crime of breach of bail conditions and so contempt of court, for which he is still wanted in the UK. The UK would extradite him in a heartbeat if the US presented a warrant and promised not to execute him. After Britain leaves the EU that latter requirement would no longer be in effect.

    27. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is no longer facing charges in Sweden. Now the UK wants to arrest him for breaking bond and fleeing to the embassy.
      In reality they want to arrest him to be extradited to the US. This will send a loud message to the rest of the press about publishing information from whistleblowers in the future.
      The fact that the rest of the press is letting this go down without protest will hasten the day that they all rot in the gulag.

    28. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said there would be an extradition? He might just get lost on the way to Sweden...

      Yep and we didn't land on the move, it was all a government plot to destroy the world trade center etc.

      Seriously if he's imprisoned himself for year after year on the basis of some crazy conspiracy theory, then he should come out and seek proper mental health experts.

    29. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He pissed his principles down the drain the minute he became ...

      They are not "his" principles. They are OUR principles. You should not be so quick to abandon them. You may want them back someday.

      WTF, the whole post is about Assange abandoning "OUR" principles and you reckon in order to not abandon these principles we need to support someone who has. Talk about messed up logic.

      The emperor has no clothes.

    30. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes and the "hunted" you speak of was them not looking for him at all, until he didn't turn up at court. No one was looking for him until after he was actually holed up there.

      These fantasy squads people have hunting him down, making him mysteriously disappear between the UK and Sweden etc. are all hopelessly impotent because there was a gap of a couple of year where everyone knew where he was, not under any sort of protection and could have simply been seized by these bad actors.

    31. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His paranoia is the fact that he thinks that the US gives two shits about him, or cares enough about him to have him extradited. That's how he got the "reputation" as a "freedom fighter".

    32. Re:It's stupid by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point is to stand up for principles.

      That's fine but Ecuador is not doing anything wrong here. If he wants to meet these people is he free to leave the embassy and meet them outside. Being a house guest does not mean you automatically get to invite whomever you want into the house as well. He should be grateful that Ecuador is sheltering him and frankly they deserve some sort of medal for sheltering this ungrateful git from what probably would be significant violation of his human rights.

    33. Re:It's stupid by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      No, he would have been extradited to the US.

      For what? He hasn't broken any US laws. If you do not have a security clearance, it is legal to publish classified information that is leaked to you.

      Also, the UK and US are extremely close allies with nearly-identical legal systems. It would be far, far, easier to extradite Assange from the UK.

    34. Re:It's stupid by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Why else would they try to extradite someone for something (retroactive rape) that isn't even a crime in the UK?

      Because extradition is based on the laws of the country seeking extradition, not the one where the person is currently located. In other words, it does not matter if it is legal in the UK.

      Also, it would be better described as "rape by lying to get consent".

      Also, Assange hasn't broken any US laws. It is legal to publish classified information that is leaked to you as long as you do not have a security clearance. That's why lots of news organizations in the US are able to publish classified information that is leaked to them.

    35. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, as an analogy, you would happily support someone else torturing a third-party... just as long as the third-party isn't you? Interesting worldview, I must say.

    36. Re:It's stupid by jeff4747 · · Score: 0

      However, in the UK there is a warrant for his arrest, for skipping bail when the UK wanted to have him extradite to Sweden

      And the remedy for that is the UK arrests him and sends him to Sweden. He wouldn't be doing time in the UK (beyond what it takes to put him on an airplane).

      It is bit too much for an alleged improper sexual behaviour.

      And Assange made it that way. Sweden has laws. Don't break them while you're in Sweden. If you break them and turn your extradition into a giant circus, it will indeed be "too much".

    37. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because extradition is based on the laws of the country seeking extradition, not the one where the person is currently located. In other words, it does not matter if it is legal in the UK.

      Not true, most if not all extradition treaties will have a Dual Criminality clause.

      he European Address Warrant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant#Double_criminality on the other hand removes that bar in many cases

      "Double criminality is a feature of international extradition law by which states may refuse to extradite fugitives if the conduct which is alleged to have constituted a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition would not have resulted in the commission of a criminal offence in the state being asked to effect the extradition.

      Under the EAW Framework Decision, the requirement for double criminality is removed for a wide range of categories of crimes, and made a discretionary rather than a compulsory ground for a refusal to extradite for offences not falling within those categories."

    38. Re:It's stupid by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Well other than being plainly false, common root sure, but massively diverged in many many aspects, what has closeness of the systems got to do with if extradition is possible?

      Take a look at the complications of extraditing him to Sweden. The UK's High Court had to decide that the particular step in Swedish laws (interview suspect just prior to arrest) is the same as a post-arrest interview in the UK and thus it was appropriate to extradite.

      The "common root" means very similar pre-trial procedures for arrest, interview and incarceration before trial, which makes extradition simpler.

    39. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most effective thing any government can do to diminish Assange's influence is to treat him like they would anyone else. His own hyperbole will do the rest.

      I don't think any government cares about Assange's influence. What they do care about is demonstrating they have the power to detain or kill people as they please. They've accomplished that. If he were to turn himself over for punishment, they have no reason to not disappear him nor any inclination to prove him paranoid or a liar. Government can waste billions of dollars to hunt one person down and seek punishment against him if they feel slighted in any way. Government hyperbole and hypocrisy knows no bounds.

      Look no further than the way the US pussyfoots around the story of Jamal Khashoggi. The only problem the US really has is Mr. BoneSaw did such a poor job cover his tracks. Everyone knows you disappear people without leaving clear evidence that you're the ones who did it because that raises uncomfortable scrutiny. And of course retaliation for raising that uncomfortable scrutiny is bound to occur even if the US does shove it entirely under the rug.

      But, please go on about how government behaves in any rational, moral, ethical, consistent way.

    40. Re:It's stupid by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      Letter from US House Representatives to President Moreno
      That's a top Democrat and a Republican from the House of Representatives Committee on foreign Affairs telling Ecuador's president that Assange is a dangerous criminal that should be stripped from citizenship and handed over. Strong arming the other country, meddling with their internal affairs (human rights respect). Three days ago.
      TFA is about JA suing over censorship in a "free" country after USA's vice-president visited said country.

      How can such a stupid post, so far removed from reality, be modded insightful? Is this place filled with government crooks?

    41. Re: It's stupid by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Do not confuse swedish law for English or American law. In Sweden. You are not charged in absentia(without bieng present).

      So in Sweden you can't be charged until brought before a judge. And they can't bring you in front of a judge for one thing and then try to charge you with something else.

      So of course he wasn't charged in Sweden legally they can't until he stood in front of a judge.

      That said if he went there he would be free on 15 minutes. As they don't want to charge him but can't finally drop it until he shows up. That is also a legal requirement.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    42. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ADX Florence, AKA, the site of the upcoming "Trump goldbar palace" - amazing what a coat of gold paint can do to a traitor's final resting place!

    43. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he had AIDS and this took place in California, itâ(TM)d be completely legal. Thanks, feminists!

    44. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If removing a condom is a sexual crime, then my we are in for a world of hurt.

      What's next, arrested for whistling at a girl?

    45. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden hasn't charged him with anything they dropped the case. The UK wants him for jumping bail. Why would the UK arrest him then send him to Sweden for no fucking reason?

      Also the US didn't charge him with anything because he did not do anything illegal.

    46. Re: It's stupid by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Absent charges being brought and an extradition requested (which will result in Assange remaining in jail pending the outcome, which could take years), he'll be deported to either Australia (his native country) or Ecuador (where he was provided citizenship).

      Whatever happens, no non-citizenship country will ever grant him entry and no judge will ever again grant bail.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    47. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's Equador jurisdiction got to do with anything, no one has disputed that. The question is was he hunted there as you assert. I see your response as about as credible as that original contention. Just hand waving, we should believe you because you say so right. No one hunted him there, he was free for years whilst this worked it's way through the court processes, any fucker could have taken him out in the open (have a word with Russians about that one), instead he decided to skulk away on some pretense of this massive conspiracy across international jurisdictions, requiring multiple conspiring members of the judiciary etc. No doubt involving the UK Royals being lizards etc.

      If your smelling bullshit, perhaps you should look close to home.

    48. Re: It's stupid by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Except Swedish prosecutors already dropped the charges. Did so back in 2017.

    49. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the most naive belief about this whole situation. Sweden has far more strict rules about who can be extradited and for what reason. Sweden also isn't anywhere near as closely associated with the United States as England is, and more importantly, has a far more neutral stance on the war on terror than England does.

      It makes no fucking sense whatsoever why England would be less likely to extradite than Sweden, and you'd have to be a real kool-aid drinker to believe otherwise.

      Even other people at WikiLeaks don't believe this line of shit, they know that Assange is a stupid little attention whore who likes to pretend to be heroic, but is really just a self-important pompous lying little weasel.

    50. Re: It's stupid by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Sweden hasn't charged him with anything they dropped the case.

      Swedish law is not UK law. Swedish law requires interviewing the suspect before filing charges. Since Assange has refused this interview, he can't be charged.

      The UK High Court ruled that the Swedish case is at the point where Assange would have been charged in the UK system, which is why the UK was willing to extradite.

      Also, two of the cases has been dropped. There were originally three. There is now one remaining case.

      The UK wants him for jumping bail.

      And what's the penalty for that? Oh, the penalty is you're held in jail until the case is resolved. Resolution is to ship him to Sweden.

    51. Re:It's stupid by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Ecuador deserves a medal, or perhaps they just suspected he had some dirt on corruption in their government which they wanted to ensure he wouldn't release.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    52. Re:It's stupid by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      Np this is not true. If what he did were legal in the UK, he would not be extradited to Sweden. However, the British court ruled that what he was accused of would be considered a crime in the UK which is why he is holed up in the Ecuador Embassy instead of living in freedom.

      Frankly, I think he did the rape. If you are trying to avoid extradition to the USA, Sweden is a better place to be than Britain.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    53. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it wasn't Russia who created that mess in Syria, Libya and all those countries. I don't know where you are from but it's here in Europe where we have to deal with the refugees, some of which are not exactly the kind of people you want to live near of.

      I have to thank the Russians for not letting the Islamic State take over the whole country which would be worse news for us here. I just hope the war gets to an end soon.

    54. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      House Representatives? So no one that have any actual say in extradition or judicial matters. Which means that this is just some politicians that wanted to scare Ecuador, nothing else.

    55. Re:It's stupid by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      No he wasn't. If he was then the first prosecutor would not have let Assange leave the country and travel to the UK in the first place. If the US really wanted him they would have picked him off the streets in the middle of the night as they have done with the other gitmo residents.

    56. Re:It's stupid by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      There have been exactly one such case involving two Egyptians. None of which where killed but tortured. They where detained unlawfully because the US managed to convince the then foreign minister (Anna Lind) that these two where terrorists and that the US had evidence that they where plotting to do terrorist acts in Sweden.

      It was also all done in secret and once it was discovered it was a major political incident and no one involved holds any office today.

    57. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you stupid or just crass? Removing a condom during sex which you had agreed to use during sex as part of consent is a crime because you no longer have consent.

    58. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try to blame feminists for that debacle. That was the result of general California lunacy.

    59. Re:It's stupid by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's what he claims. Whether this is true or not has not been shown. By staying within the embassy we can only theorize. Maintaining a victim status however ensures he stays in the news.

    60. Re:It's stupid by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      By staying inside the consulate that conspiracy theory can remain alive and active. It may turn out here's merely a prisoner of his own paranoia.

    61. Re:It's stupid by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's absurd to think that this would happen. Most conspiracy theories live on the fact that such things happen all the time in secret and that we don't know about it because the government covers this up. If this happened publicly it would simultaneously both confirm and refute the conspiracy theories, causing the universe to wink out of existence.

    62. Re:It's stupid by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Which government? The US government could do this with anyone and yet either has not done this or has only done this secretly. If the government has done this secretly then they would logically want to maintain this secrecy. So why is Assange the only person that they would disappear publicly? The most damage the US government could to do Assange and Wikileaks is to do nothing and prove him to be merely paranoid.

      On the otherhand, possibly due to grammar, it seems like say "government" as if it were a single world wide government. Hopefully you're not that crazy.

      As for the Saudis, note that they are going to face a big economic hit for this fiasco in Turkey, even though everyone in the world already knows that the Saudis are rubbish at civil rights already. If the US did the same thing it would be a disaster to the US. No sane government would attempt this sort of disappearance merely to send a message (and yes, the Saudis are insane, or inept, or both).

    63. Re:It's stupid by phayes · · Score: 1

      Well, I still have principals whatever becomes of Assange.

      Assange can avoid waiting in jail by promising to respect the judgement of the court system of that country and not flee from justice if those courts decide that he needs to face justice in Sweden for acts that constitute rape. Assange's forswearing and bail jumping doesn't affect my principals.

      Assange can also take advantage of yet another credulous young girl by raping her while she is sleeping and that won't affect my principals either.

      Assange can also accept money from Putin without that affecting my principals.

      But don't try and claim that Assange has any principals in common with me. I've been paying attention to Assange's acts and the man clearly has no principals other than "worship me"

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    64. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, we have Assad to thank for helping Daesh rise & stab the moderate Syrian opposition in the back.

      We just have Russia to blame for helping Assad bombard and gas hundreds of thousands. But that's not a moral problem for you is it tovarich?

    65. Re:It's stupid by phayes · · Score: 1

      Looks like you need a much better microscope to be able to continue clutching those straws there buddy.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    66. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, nice crazy conspiracy theory you got there. Do you believe in alien abductions and the Illuminati too?

    67. Re: It's stupid by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      The UK wants him for jumping bail.

      And what's the penalty for that? Oh, the penalty is you're held in jail until the case is resolved. Resolution is to ship him to Sweden.

      And the UK would, since they're extraditing him, be in a position to insist that if they extradite him, then they get to make sure Sweden doesn't do anything to him outside of what they agreed to extradite him for.

      Honestly, at this point it seems most likely that either he's guilty of what he's accused of, or suffering from delusions. The latter certainly would explain why Ecuador might be trying to get him to move out of their embassy, and I suspect he was long ago offered a chance to get out of the UK and to Ecuador.

    68. Re:It's stupid by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ... and no one involved holds any office today.

      Anna Lindh certainly doesn't.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    69. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment doesn't make sense. You must have mis-read OP's post somehow.

      OP is accusing Assange of abandoning the principles Assange claimed to follow.
      OP is not advocating that other people abandon those principles.
      OP is not claiming that the abstract concepts themselves were damaged or diminished by Assange's actions.

    70. Re:It's stupid by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The important thing is that they are both allies of America and willing to do America's bidding.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    71. Re:It's stupid by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Haven't you heard of Extraordinary rendition? America is well known for doing it, usually on the quiet.
      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Extraordinary rendition, also called irregular rendition or forced rendition, is the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another that has predominantly been carried out by the United States government with the consent of other countries.[1][2][3]

      The first known foreign rendition by the US was that of airline hijacker Fawaz Younis who, in September 1987, was abducted after being lured on a yacht in Italy and brought to the U.S. for trial, authorized by President Ronald Reagan.[4] President Bill Clinton authorized extraordinary rendition to nations known to practice interrogation, which has been called on occasion torture by proxy.[5] The administration of President George W. Bush rendered hundreds of illegal combatants for US detention, and transported detainees to US controlled sites as part of an extensive interrogation program that included torture.[6] Extraordinary rendition continued under the Obama administration; with targets being interrogated and subsequently taken to the US for trial.[7]

      The United Nations considers one nation abducting the citizens of another a crime against humanity.[8] In July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights condemned the government of Poland for participating in CIA extraordinary rendition, ordering Poland to pay restitution to men who had been abducted, taken to a CIA black site in Poland, and tortured.[9][10][11]

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    72. Re: It's stupid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      No, they probably really want to try him for being an incredibly public person who has wilfully violated orders of the court. No country would adopt an "aww shucks" attitude towards this. He either stays in that building forever, or goes into handcuffs - those are his only two options.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    73. Re: It's stupid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So now it's "being hunted" when you skip bail and hide in the embassy of a different country because you have delusions of grandeur regarding your own importance but really just don't want a judicial smackdown showing that you are another shithead in a long list of quasi-famous names who have no respect for women?

      Not much of a hunt when this guy does everything he can to put his finger in the eye of the UK government.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    74. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how to break it to you, but in more developed places is has been a crime for some time now.

    75. Re: It's stupid by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      England != UK

      England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland = UK

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    76. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange Man Bad!

    77. Re:It's stupid by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      If the hand that feeds you is also the hand that abuses you, I wouldn't be surprised if you did some biting.

      Look, I'm not taking a side here. The moral dilemmas in this case are pretty confusing. I'm just saying that someone who receives a benefit is not necessarily out of bounds when they complain about receiving mistreatment.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    78. Re:It's stupid by gravewax · · Score: 1

      The problem is he isn't just receiving a benefit, he is abusing that benefit through his own behaviour. The reasons he had his communications rights removed is because he is a pig and is turning the embassy into a pigsty. Basically he has received the equivalent of a go to your room without internet till you clean your shit up, to which he has responded FUCK YOU. Personally if I was them I would simply throw his arse on the sidewalk.

    79. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no the important part is whether or not he would be unjustly persecuted. Yes the US Gov is corrupt as fuck, especially nowadays, but at the moment they have bigger PR disasters with Saudi so I doubt they want to double down. Regardless he is unlikely to be tortured in the US, being prosecuted for a crime is also not persecution, especially if you did it.

    80. Re: It's stupid by blahplusplus · · Score: 0

      So now it's "being hunted" when you skip bail and hide in the embassy.

      Except the whole legal process is a sham you idiot, as soon as they got assange they will use their trumped up charges to extradite him to the US. The level of braindeath in the posts in this article is off the charts.

    81. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why is Assange the only person that they would disappear publicly?

      As the other poster mentioned, the whole point is the US does disappear people but not publicly because that produces backlash. It's one of the main reason Assange has tried so hard to maintain a public profile so that if he were to disappear there'd be some effort to find out why.

      As for the Saudis, note that they are going to face a big economic hit for this fiasco in Turkey,...

      Because they were caught, and even then it's nothing close to the sort of hit if other governments were actually outraged about this.

      If the US did the same thing it would be a disaster to the US. No sane government would attempt this sort of disappearance merely to send a message (and yes, the Saudis are insane, or inept, or both).

      You're right. The US disappears publicly unknown #2 or #3 people to send the message: only the leader is safe, so don't follow him or you'll wind up dead so you best try to overthrow him. The US has to appease its populace to some degree so its degree of outright corruption is limited, but it's not enough to outright stop the abuse. The Saudis know they've enough foreign interests to not receive much backlash from abroad--no calls for airstrikes or funding insurgents by the US/Russia--and enough direct control in their country to crush even the sign of insurrection.

      Having said all that, look at all the things the US has done from kidnapping to torture to mass surveillance of the population with virtually no punishment. Clearly the US government has mostly learned what lines can be crossed, if at all, and how. I mean, literally that's what Wikileaks has been all about.

    82. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NI is occupied territory and is not part of UK willingly -as in significant force has had to be used- there is nothing united in UK

      Even scottish people do not really want to be there and many were able to see through the financial scaremongering

      "Democracy is a tyranny of (infinitesimally larger, in cases) majority over minority" I must attribute this to Plato. In cases that difference could be a single vote and that makes that person ultimately a dictator :-)

    83. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well considering recent statements from Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for his arrest and extradition to the US I think its fair to say everything you have written is crap and Assange is not paranoid.

    84. Re: It's stupid by Cederic · · Score: 1

      However, the relevant legal jurisdiction is England and Wales, not Scotland or NI.

      It's considered acceptable to omit Wales, especially if you don't want to have to repeat yourself in an unspellable language.

    85. Re: It's stupid by Cederic · · Score: 1

      NI is occupied territory and is not part of UK willingly

      Bullshit. NI chooses to be part of the United Kingdom.

      significant force has had to be used

      Translation: About the same amount of force that the Chicago police use at the weekend.

      The army were sent in to help assure that all citizens - even those that do want to live in Ireland and not Northern Ireland - are equally secure and protected under the law.

      Even scottish people do not really want to be there

      If only there was a way to let them formally choose as a nation whether to leave the union. We could call it a referendum.

      Sorry, breaking news: it happened 4 years ago. The Scottish people revealed that on balance they do really want to be there.

      "Democracy is a tyranny of (infinitesimally larger, in cases) majority over minority"

      I believe Winston (bless his racist little soul) said it best:

      it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

      I wont claim that British democracy lacks flaws, but it's a fuck of a lot better than letting a minority exert tyranny over a majority.

    86. Re:It's stupid by Cederic · · Score: 1

      After Britain leaves the EU that latter requirement would no longer be in effect.

      It will continue to be effect until/unless a new law is passed that removes it.

      Not that I trust the current Government to obey the current law, let alone enact a new one allowing state sanctioned murder.

    87. Re:It's stupid by Cederic · · Score: 1

      If the hand that feeds you is also the hand that abuses you, I wouldn't be surprised if you did some biting.

      Surely the better answer would be to just remove his cat and find it a home in which someone will feed it without abuse.

    88. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mate, I have known Julian since the early 1980â(TM)s - trust me on this : heâ(TM)s an utter arsehole and if he has ANY principles , they donâ(TM)t extend much beyond âoewhatâ(TM)s in this for Julianâ. The crypto anarchist persona was adopted mainly because it got him laid more than a fascist one.

    89. Re:It's stupid by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      I know, it' not like that event went unnoticed here in Sweden... However she was murdered way before this extradition thing was exposed so we have no idea today if the powers at be simply used her as a scapegoat since she obviously could not defend her self at that point.

    90. Re:It's stupid by RockDoctor · · Score: 2
      At this point it's unlikely he would be killed.You can write this after the cock-sucking that Trump has been giving to Saudi Arabia over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul? A problematic fucker like Assange is going to have the life expectancy of a snowflake in hell if the American get hold of him. Or one of their stooges, like the Swedes. He is completely justified in his expectation of death for being politically inconvenient.

      Or did you, for some deluded reason, think that "America is better than that"? Oh, man, that's such an Obama-era "alternative fact".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    91. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.

      Of course that in Sweden you can be charged "in absentia":
      https://www.thelocal.se/20050209/947
      https://www.thelocal.se/20100915/29014

      You can even be convicted in absentia... Even when you're dead:
      https://www.thelocal.se/20100526/26862

      So cut down on pretending to be "Swedish", lovely CIA rookie agent man.

    92. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Swedish law doesn't require such a thing. Someone I know was charged and convicted in Sweden, and only then did Sweden ask his home country for an extradition. The guy did 2 years in a Swedish jail.

      Sweden could have charged and convicted Assange if he were guilty of anything there, but in that case, it would not have been possible to play one of those "lose him in the airport in the hands of CIA" tricks the Swedes are so good at.

    93. Re: It's stupid by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      No, Swedish law doesn't require such a thing.

      According to the UK's High Court, it does. I'm gonna trust them a wee bit more than an AC.

      Someone I know was charged and convicted in Sweden, and only then did Sweden ask his home country for an extradition. The guy did 2 years in a Swedish jail.

      r/thathappened

      but in that case, it would not have been possible to play one of those "lose him in the airport in the hands of CIA" tricks the Swedes are so good at.

      You realize that the UK could just as easily seize Assange for the US, right? It's not like British Intelligence has the cleanest hands in the world.

    94. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US will not "press charges", the British police, which will be escorting him will "lose" him for a moment and he'll end up on a private jet flying to Africa or that Cuban facility which Obama didn't close.

    95. Re:It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you mean those gas attacks nobody has evidence about, well, yes, it's not really a problem for me. I think it's something similar to those weapons of mass destruction somebody claimed Iraq had, and... you know the rest of the story.

      About that moderate Syrian islamist opposition, yes, I finally could spot the difference!

      http://www.syriatruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/10639661_851830621502999_840154649428843917_n.jpg

      Can you, goatfucker?

    96. Re:It's stupid by Agripa · · Score: 1

      No, he would have been extradited to the US.

      For what? He hasn't broken any US laws. If you do not have a security clearance, it is legal to publish classified information that is leaked to you.

      At most he would only need to be indicted and a warrant issued.

      Also, the UK and US are extremely close allies with nearly-identical legal systems. It would be far, far, easier to extradite Assange from the UK.

      I doubt it makes a significant difference.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    97. Re:It's stupid by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      You just reminded me.
      If anyone wanted to "come to justice" with less fear of something mysterious happening to them, NOW is the perfect time with the Saudi issues on the front burner.

    98. Re: It's stupid by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Stop for a moment. Consider what you just said. Whistling at a girl is the equivalent of removing a condom during sex with a woman.
      Ponder that for a moment.
      now go sit in the corner until you're better.

    99. Re: It's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that nobody in the US gives a shit anymore. He's already imprisoned himself, essentially, and destroyed any credibility he had in the 2016 election.

      Assange is a complete who-gives-a-shit, and should just come out and face the consequences of skipping bail.

  3. I wonder if it's a bitch to fap in the embassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's gotta be the most annoying part.

  4. "Ecuador's measures against Julian Assange" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ecuador's measures against Julian Assange" - It just reads funny. He's not helping himself.

  5. Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be him. You would think with all this I'm hearing about "freedom of the press" he could have just released everything and stay in the states. Or does anyone believe we still have freedoms in the USA anymore?

    1. Re:Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's actually Australian, not American.

    2. Re:Sucks by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real problem is Assange is a prisoner of his own paranoia.
      While the Wikileaks annoyed countries, they care more about the people who leaked the information to him, more then him being the one who posted it. Heck after it was posted on Wikileaks the main stream media picked it up and publicly rebroadcasted it.

      In terms of US Freedom he helped out Trump so he is good.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one freedom you no longer have in the US. And be specific. Show some intelligence in your answer. And the US is drowning in Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. And someone who doesn't agree with the content of your speech does not mean they are deriving you of your right. Not to mention that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are only protections from government interference. Twitter or Facebook can ban you from their services and they are not infringing on your right to free speech. An employer can fire you if you say or do certain things when operating as an employee.

      If only there was a minimum IQ required before exercising these Rights the world wouldn't be on the fast track towards utter chaos and destruction.

    4. Re:Sucks by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So while Assange claims he is essentially a prisoner because of a big cache of information he passed along, the person who provided that cache is now out of military prison and has not "disappeared" or been charged with civilian crimes.

    5. Re:Sucks by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Name one freedom you no longer have in the US. And be specific. Show some intelligence in your answer.

      A specious way to pose the question. But since you asked, it's not so much a matter of what freedoms you no longer have, but rather what freedoms are under attack.

      Here's a sample. Google can find you others.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/...
      https://www.axios.com/united-n...
      https://www.axios.com/trump-ad...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is Assange is a prisoner of his own paranoia.

      It's not paranoia when diplomats, politicans, military officers and security officals of increasingly corrupt superpowers really do say they are all out to get you.

  6. No More Free WiFi by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ecuador can show him the exits to the embassy and how to use them if Mr. Assange believes his proverbial 'living in his parent's basement without free wifi' is tantamount to human rights violations. He's more than free to walk out the door and find out what real prison looks like.

    1. Re:No More Free WiFi by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, it's hard to say whether Ecuador has the legal right to expel Assange. Ecuador (like the United States), is a signatory to a number of treaties which govern the treatment of asylum seekers, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951).

      These treaties establish a right of a foreign national to seek asylum in a signatory country if he genuinely faces persecution, and imposes duties upon signatory countries, such as various forms of non-discrimination and provision of administrative support. So while it is bad manners for Assange to be a political PITA to Ecuador, that's not legally sufficient grounds for expelling a refugee admitted under these treaties. Ecuador would have to find that Assange does not face persecution, except for conditions spelled out under Article 14 of the UDHR.

      This puts Ecuador in a bind: unless something has substantively changed, it can't expel Assange without either (a) admitting that it violated the sovereignty of the UK by granting him bogus asylum in the first place or (b) apparently violating Assange's rights as a legitimate refugee under conventions that Ecuador is signatory to.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:No More Free WiFi by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ecuador doesn't have to prove that he would face political persecution if expelled (to whatever country), it's up to Assange to prove that he would. A country is not legally bound merely by a claim of an asylum seeker. Ecuador could just say that they granted him asylum while considering the claim and then found later that there was no basis to the claim.

    3. Re:No More Free WiFi by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Ecuador is not in a bind at all..Assange has to prove he would face persecution, Ecuador doesn't need to prove anything, they just state they have been presented with no evidence he will face persecution and expel him.

    4. Re:No More Free WiFi by hey! · · Score: 1

      The point is that Ecuador has already accepted Assange's claim.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:No More Free WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they haven't, they have accepted his request as basically a refugee, this is how all such requests happen. pending further investigations they can refuse or revoke that status, it is not a something that is granted indefinitely with no chance of cancellation.

    6. Re:No More Free WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      irrelevant, a country can revoke that at any stage simply by saying they no longer believe he is in danger, the onus remains on Assange to prove he is at risk. People have their visas/asylum status and even citizenship revoked all the time, all a country has to do is say he has breached the terms of his agreement or that the risks under which he was granted it no longer apply.

    7. Re:No More Free WiFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it's hard to say whether Ecuador has the legal right to expel Assange. Ecuador (like the United States), is a signatory to a number of treaties which govern the treatment of asylum seekers, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951).

      You know, I wonder how those treaties play out given assange's pledge to turn himself over to US authorities. He may have renegged on it but the US already upheld their side of the bargain, assange simply bailed on his side.

  7. My oh my by AlanObject · · Score: 0

    Glenn Greenwald has been one of the most ardent Assange supporters from the get-go. I wonder what he is going to have to say about this.

    Assange used to be someone to admire but those days seem long over. It is one thing to have principles but had he just given himself up, gone to Sweden (likely), got tried for bad sex (less likely), convicted (even less likely) spent time in prison (totally unlikely) at the maximum sentence he would have been free and clear for over two years now.

    Prone to bad decisions.

    1. Re:My oh my by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      IIRC he hid because he was afraid Sweden would extradite him to the US, not because he was unwilling to face charges in Sweden which, as you say, most likely wouldn't have gone anywhere.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:My oh my by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Glenn Greenwald has been one of the most ardent Assange supporters from the get-go. I wonder what he is going to have to say about this.

      Assange used to be someone to admire but those days seem long over. It is one thing to have principles but had he just given himself up, gone to Sweden (likely), got tried for bad sex (less likely), convicted (even less likely) spent time in prison (totally unlikely) at the maximum sentence he would have been free and clear for over two years now.

      Prone to bad decisions.

      Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.

    3. Re:My oh my by Megol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he _claimed_ that's why he hid. Anybody with intelligence can do some research and find out how likely that scenario is compared to the scenario he didn't even mention - that the UK could extradite him to the US. Why he would choose to go to prison of his own choice? Mental illness? Wanting to become some kind of (living) martyr? Realizing that a guilty verdict for rape could be a problem?

      None of those makes sense, but him being afraid of extradition to (and sentenced to death in) the USA makes the least sense of them all. Absolute bullshit!

    4. Re:My oh my by blahplusplus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.

      Except what you just repeated is propaganda based on false allegations. It's not like false flags have ever occured.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    5. Re:My oh my by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Glenn Greenwald has been one of the most ardent Assange supporters from the get-go. I wonder what he is going to have to say about this.

      I'm guessing something about Clinton, Cheney, 9/11, Clinton again, Morgan Stanley, the Democrats, neo-conservatism, Clinton again, the CIA, 9/11, Clinton again, some spurious accusation of hypocrisy against the ACLU, Clinton again, CIA, banksters, Clinton.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re: My oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Sweden refuse to rule out extradition if he did turn up?

    7. Re:My oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Except what you just repeated is propaganda based on false allegations. It's not like false flags have ever occured.

      Yeah because you were there are no exactly what happened right? Or are you just taking it on faith of the great god Assange that his word is holy and true and any disbeliever is a heretic?

      That's why we have a judicial system, you get tried, rather than just declaring yourself innocent and running away like a crying kid.

      Of course I'm forgetting these mysterious powers who would somehow salt him away through the real process, despite their failures to do so when they could easily have done during the many times when it's been pretty publicly known where he was, they chose some massive international ruse relying on multiple countries, countless officials etc. A theory worthy of David Icke.

    8. Re:My oh my by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.

      Except that didn't happen.

      The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.

    9. Re:My oh my by blahplusplus · · Score: 2

      Yeah because you were there are no exactly what happened right?

      Anyone with an inkling of the history of america knows it's true, people like you are laughable morons. Most of todays slashdot commentariat proves americans are gullible idiots. It was obvious to anyone with half a clue you piss off and do a data dump on the war crimes of the biggest empire on the planet, that's going to piss a lot of people at the top the fuck off enough to come after your ass.

      You don't see the world as it is see the science:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    10. Re: My oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making the same mistake. You are blaming him of rape with no proof.

      You condemn the OP because he says he didn't commit rape with no proof. And you turn around and claim he did rape her, and present no proof.

      You are worse than he is.

    11. Re: My oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Clinton.

    12. Re: My oh my by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Sweden dropped the charges more than a year ago.

      https://www.theguardian.com/me...

    13. Re:My oh my by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      The charges for the crime he was accused of were dropped by Swedish prosecutors nearly a year and a half ago.

    14. Re:My oh my by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      No, two sets of charges were dropped. There is still one case against him.

    15. Re:My oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right so what you are saying is that because that is a possibility, it cannot therefore ever be possible that Assange can commit any crime ever, because anything he's accused of must be because of your assumed conspiracy.

      Of course, whatever you say. Assange has now by his actions of revealing secrets which piss people off been elevated to a god who can do no wrong, because any allegation is not because it could be true, but because of this other stuff. Nice position to be in.

      Laughable morons? I guess your overall self righteousness in terms of seeing everybody else view as result of being a Moron is what separates you from the rest of us. Please pat yourself on the back and feel smug about what a genius you are that your response to an alternate view is such an intelligent analysis.

    16. Re:My oh my by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.

      Except that didn't happen.

      The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.

      Well, the thing that really makes it amusing is that a lot of the people flipping out over it being illegal in Sweden live in countries where it probably is also illegal, or is likely to become illegal due to changes in the law or in how it's interpreted.

    17. Re:My oh my by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.

      Except that didn't happen.

      The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.

      As others have pointed out, there were two events:
      First, he was accused of lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Specifically, he's accused of intentionally removing the condom during sex, knowing that she had explicitly refused consenting to sex without a condom. That charge, however, has been dropped.
      Second, he was accused of penetrating an unconscious person without a condom after she had explicitly refused to have sex with him without a condom before she went to sleep. That charge is rape, and is still pending. And it's not legal in most other countries, notably England, which is why the UK High Court refused his request to deny extradition. It's also rape here in the US. If someone says no, you don't get to wait until they're asleep and then say "lol, you didn't say no now!"

  8. stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am just a stupid Greek, but has Ecuador violated his fundemental right and freedom to leave the embassy?

  9. Next Slashdot Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ecuador Kicks Out Assange's Ass"

  10. Ob Cartman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No more internet for you, Julian!"
    "But mahhhhhhhhhhhhm! Respect my human rights! I've got, um, lawyers. Special laywers."

  11. It's almost like... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's trying to get thrown out.

    If I were the ambassador there, my response to this would be contact the London Met police, say he's coming out in 30 minutes, and then have the two burliest members of staff toss his arse into the street.

    There is, I suspect, a reason I'm not an ambassador.

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  12. Follow his example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ecuador should follow Assange's example: escape the lawsuit by going to another country. Which in this case would mean abandoning the embassy and leaving him behind. Not the most economical solution, but would be fun.

  13. There's the door! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You are free to leave any time Mr. Assange."
    Nobody says he has to stay there. Granted, there are consequences, but he's at the embassy by his own choice.

  14. So that's the answer! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    When you are caught between a rock and a hard place, sue the hard place! ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  15. What a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You shouldn't shit where you sleep.

    1. Re:What a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, six years, imprisoned? And he is imprisoned. Granted, it's a self-imprisonment to avoid actual prison, but you'd have to be pretty daft to think Assange would have ended up tossed into a US style supermax with a cellmate named Bubba Crip.

      But the fact remains: He isn't free. After six years, I could see the logic in rolling the dice. Either Assange gets his weekly pizza and free wifi back, he's booted out and nobody really cares, or he's booted out and becomes a martyr.

      All three are superior to sittin' watchin' the paint peel. Just ask the nerd-idolized Aaron Schwartz.

    2. Re:What a terrible idea. by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Either Assange gets his weekly pizza and free wifi back, he's booted out and nobody really cares, or he's booted out and becomes a martyr.

      All three are superior to sittin' watchin' the paint peel

      There is nothing preventing him from simply walking out the door. If he wants to wrap this up somehow and do it now, then he really doesn't need a lawsuit or anyone's permission.

    3. Re:What a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supermax prisoners don't get a cellmate. In fact, they never meet another prisoner.

    4. Re: What a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wrap it up"

      I see what you did there. Because he refuses to use condoms. Well played sir.

  16. Is he deranged? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    I guess that all these years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy are starting to take their toll. Soon the guy will be eager to take his chances vis-a-vis US extradition, rather than carrying on wasting his life.

    1. Re:Is he deranged? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Honestly though... If *I* were cooped up in one building for six years, with torture and murder at the hands of the CIA awaiting me should I ever set foot outside, I would probably be pretty deranged by now too.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    2. Re:Is he deranged? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Could be worse.

      Could be the Syrian embassy.

      Embassy Suites should sue Syria and Ecuador for giving Embassies a bad name.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    3. Re:Is he deranged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      torture and murder at the hands of the CIA awaiting me should I ever set foot outside, I would probably be pretty deranged by now too.

      I think you'd have to be deranged to think that is the case at all. He hasn't broken any US laws. There are no grounds to extradite him. No moves have been made to extradite him. As public as he is, there's no way any government agency would 'disappear' him.

      If anything he should be worried about Russians taking him out just because it would be assumed the US did it.

  17. Re:Ungrateful by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    Exactly. They should just boot his attention-whoring ass out.

  18. Re:There's the Riemann Hypothesis as well by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    And this has what to do with the topic of this story?

  19. Hanging is too good for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give him to the Saudis. Those guys will deal with him just right.

  20. He's an ingrate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assange is an ungrateful prick. He never acknowledges the price Ecuador is paying for him; he just constantly gives them a black eye for their pains.
    It sucks when you have to defend assholes.

    1. Re:He's an ingrate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why accept him in the first place then? You accept him, you pay the price. Don't whinge you made a bad call to try and one up someone else.

  21. Re:GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA GNAA GNAA SUPPORTS CATS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is why anonymous and unlimited free speech must be ended. NOW. There is no room in the world for HATE. There is no room in the world for things like this! Let's all get together and call for the END of unlimited free speech and anonymous posting!

    We are the representatives, the privileged, and we must fight for the RIGHTS of the VICTIMS here!

    END THIS ANONYMOUS AND END THIS UNLIMITED FREE SPEECH NOW. Lets put the criminal nazi racist haters in prison where they belong!

  22. Narcissist by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

    In the unlikely case that there was still someone out there who doubted that he's a big flaming narcissist, here you go.

  23. Assange should move in with that guy who sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange should move in with that guy who sued his parents a few months ago.

  24. Re: too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Iâ(TM)m not the previous poster, but the allegation is in fact an allegation. Whether itâ(TM)s spurious or not is not proven. If I recall the context, the charges were that he took advantage of women who were already sleeping next to him. The question of whether he did this or not... whether it was consensual or not, etc... are all charges which need would have to pass through the justice system. It is possible we would not have the ability to find the facts of the cases even through due process, but just because the justice systems are far from perfect, it doesnâ(TM)t mean they should be discounted as useless or irrelevant.

    If the charges are found to be spurious following due process or guilt canâ(TM)t be proven beyond reasonable doubt, then it is fair to call them spurious. But at least one (I believe it was two) women have brought charges and if nothing else Assange was foolish enough to place himself in a situation where such charges could be raised (spurious or not).

    So, I think itâ(TM)s fair to call the man an idiot that he would, while under such public scrutiny and while facing a risk of extradition to countries hostile towards him, he would not behaved more appropriately as to avoid the risks of further charges.

  25. Transfer to Saudi Embassy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for their 'journalist protection program.'

  26. Re: too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. My original post was overly purile but you nailed it in your last sentence, and he's hardly in the position to be complaining about violation of rights when it is his actions that got him in the situation he is in today. Maybe if he used the brain in his head a little more and the one in his pants a little less.

  27. Assange and Snowden... by ole_timer · · Score: 2

    ...aught to be put in the same cell together and they can tell each other how great thy are...

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
    1. Re:Assange and Snowden... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      oh, and how their rights are being taken away...

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    2. Re:Assange and Snowden... by Megol · · Score: 1

      You comparing those two says a lot about you.

    3. Re:Assange and Snowden... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Why? Assange hasn't broken any US laws.

    4. Re:Assange and Snowden... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      who said the jail cell was in the US?

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    5. Re:Assange and Snowden... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Well, Snowden broke US law when he accepted Russian aid, so he'd be in a US prison. So if you want them to be in the same prison, it's going to be a US one.

    6. Re:Assange and Snowden... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      True enough and we don't do rendition anymore. Assange would have to charged in US. Oh well, one can hope.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
  28. I don't understand why by oldgraybeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ecuador has not given him the boot after all this time.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:I don't understand why by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      they want him to walk...

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    2. Re:I don't understand why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They granted him political asylum. That's a concept which many countries don't have, but which South American presidents often take advantage of when their term in office comes to an end (sometimes prematurely) and they want to be safe from their successor. The cost/benefit analysis is putting up with Assange vs weakening an institution which might some day save the president's life.

    3. Re:I don't understand why by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      He is useful as the fourth player for bridge.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    4. Re:I don't understand why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd add to this that just like Snowden it's also a political move to show they're not beholden to the US. So long as they can manipulate Assange to leave without outright forcing him, they can continue to make the claim. The only real chance they have to kick out Assange is if some other US target can be taken in to replace him. Maybe they should try to sweet talk Snowden?

  29. Re: too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, she was wearing a mini-skirt so she was asking for it.

  30. This shall not stand by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a show of solidarity with Julian Assange, I will be suing my mother for violating my rights by insisting that I get a job and move out.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:This shall not stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, that's been tried. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/22...

      It didn't go so well.

    2. Re: This shall not stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)m surprised it took you this long.

    3. Re:This shall not stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better analogy would be to sue your mother for violating your rights for insisting you clean your cat's litter box at least once a week and spend less time on twitter...which is essentially what happened. ;)

  31. trump is pro public executions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So maybe the usa can just do it.

  32. Biting the Hand that Feeds You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well now, if this isn't a splendid case of biting the hand that feeds you.

    Ecuador doesn't owe Assange asylum. I say just escort him to the gates of the embassy and shove him through. Let him protect himself from having to answer for the charges against him.

  33. Assange is a narcissist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assange is like a bad referee in sports. When a referee does their job properly, few know their name. The game recap focuses on how the players and coaches performed.

    When a referee does an excessively poor job (e.g., bringing unnecessary attention to themselves), the game recap becomes about the ref. The performance of the players becomes secondary.

    Assange is/was a bad referee for Wikileaks. He made the focus all about him, not the confidential information. Seems Ecuador is finally learning how much Assange desires the spotlight.

    1. Re:Assange is a narcissist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well underrated observation (score 1 as I write)

  34. Maybe #MeToo?? by rojash · · Score: 1

    Maybe #MeToo would be more effective at getting him to resign himself LOL

  35. Is it truly a rights violation? by franzrogar · · Score: 1

    I mean, he can send and reveive phisical letters so... what's he complaining about?

    I mean, Internet is only to send and receive information which he can do physically (sending DVDs for example or handwritten letters).

    Slower? Yes, but he can communicate. Internet, as far as I know, has never ever been part of the Human Rights as it's a "medium" and not the "only medium" to use one if the rights there written.

    1. Re:Is it truly a rights violation? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      I suspect accessing PornHub via sending and receiving physical letters is somewhat cumbersome...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  36. What's in a name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Julian Assange ~ suing jean alas

    using an(1), one of Assange's most worthy projects.

  37. He won't be extradited now. He helped Trump win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The previous administration may have wanted to extradite him for his actions but I doubt the current one will. Wikileaks helped put the POS in the Oval Office. He'd get a pardon from Trump. He has nothing to worry about in the US.

  38. He is a guest. Throw is ass out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He is a guest. If he doesn't like the rules of the house, throw is ass out.

    And I wouldn't let him have guests, a cat, a phone or any computing devices either. If he wants the rights of a free person, there's the door. Go, be free.

    PuLEEEEEEASE. Throw his ass out.

  39. He's not too dangrous by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but letting him go would send the wrong message. The goal is to wreck his life, which we've done and will continue to do.

    That said, he's part of what gave us Donald Trump. I don't think he thought that one through. Hillary was no friend of his, but neither was Trump, and by helping Trump slide into the whitehouse he's pissed off the lefties who defended him. I've certainly noticed that they've made themselves scarce on /. since the election. Pre 2016 there were a ton of his defenders around here. Nowadays they're no where to be found...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:He's not too dangrous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's not part of "what gave you Donald Trump". What gave you Donald Trump is the American political system. Assange, Putin, and even the God Almighty had almost no influence on it.

  40. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't rape anyone, but he is an egotistical douchebag and a complete idiot.

    Seriously Julian, ever heard the saying "Don't shit where you eat?" I'll be laughing and pointing your way when Ecuador kicks you to the kerb and you get picked up by the police.

  41. Rot in hell, Assange! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You showed your true colors during the last American campaign - enjoy your life confined to a small room or a jail cell.

  42. Re: GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA GNAA GNAA SUPPORTS CATS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes

  43. Re: too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She wore a sign that said "I'm asking for it"

    What more do you want?

  44. Re: GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA GNAA GNAA SUPPORTS CATS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But how do I become a gay nagger?

  45. Guests should not piss in the punchbowl by swschrad · · Score: 1

    which is what Assange is doing. Ecuador kept his butt out of jail as an asylum seeking guest. well, governments change, and wot ya know, they're tired of him. at least he hasn't been kicked out yet. keep this up, it will happen. he will meet the Crown, and best have a good lawyer with him to get mere deportation.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  46. rights to outside world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the embassy ought to allow him his rights to the outside world, just as he states he wants...let him go outside, but he would be arrested.

  47. Snowflake discovers third world country ... by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    ... doesn't respect his rights as much as he'd like. Poor snowflake.

  48. Re:GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA GNAA GNAA SUPPORTS CATS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That statements decrying anonymous free speech made anonymously are wrong and should be down-modded. Accounts here are free.

  49. I'm not happy with Assange by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    since he helped give us Trump, but the US has most certainly _not_ withdrawn from the world stage under Trump. Not even a little. We've expanded our troop deployments, we've threatened Iran without provocation or cause, we've continued to assist Saudi Arabia in their war in Yemen (our bombs just blew up a school bus there) and we keep dicking with South America (there's evidence we're helping prop up that right wing insurgency in Brazil since the leftists are threatening US corporate economic interests down there).

    I'm not saying this is on Trump per se. Obama did the same thing. So did Bush (both of 'em). So did Clinton. But I _am_ saying Trump loudly promised to stop this crap and then kept doing it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  50. Isn't it his word against hers? by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    Also isn't there evidence that one or more of the girls has ties to the American CIA?

    Also, I know we're not supposed to complain about the Mods, but when Kavanaugh was up for SCOTUS you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on /. that would defend or even humor his accusers but with Assange folks are piling on to hate on him. That's a pretty big change too. Post this story a few years ago and he's be loaded with defenders.

    Has /.'s opinion of Assange changed or did we have Russian trolls modding pro-Assange posts up back then that are now gone (or just don't support him anymore)? Either way something's definitely changed.

    If folks are mad at Assange because he helped give us Trump you'd expect their anger to show up in the discussions about Kavanaugh. That makes me think /.'s modding system is being manipulated. It might also be /.ers themselves are being manipulated.

    Either way something's not right.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Isn't it his word against hers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has /.'s opinion of Assange changed or did we have Russian trolls modding pro-Assange posts up back then that are now gone (or just don't support him anymore)? Either way something's definitely changed.

      My opinion of him changed the minute he welched on his promise to turn himself over to US authorities for the possibility of extradition. He has continued to avoid facing swedish authorities while claiming he's afraid of US extradition AFTER he SWORE he would turn himself over to US authorities for extradition.

  51. Re: GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA GNAA GNAA SUPPORTS CATS by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    No, they just treat all off-topic posts equally.

    Equality for all!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  52. what the what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, he had some good shit to tell the world.

    Obviously, he had a bunch of bad shit too.

    Oh wait... those are both bad shits.

  53. Re: too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He had already been questioned once. The case dropped, it moved to a different judge and was reopened. They refuse to do questioning over the phone. I don't think this fits the bill for a normal rape case.

  54. Very educational by sageres · · Score: 1

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very definition of the word "Chutzpah". After being given refuge, food and shelter, we should sue our benefactors for making us clean up after ourselves! (How dare they!)

  55. LMFAO!!! by sentiblue · · Score: 1

    What an ungrateful son of a bitch! I want the Ecuador embassy to kick him out to the street of London, get kicked around a whole lot then arrested by UK police for the rape charges they've been wanting to press, then extradited to the US for espionage and receive life sentence without parole.

  56. The amount of stupid in the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... has to be more than just the usual level of internet ignorance.

    I wonder how many people are here as employees of misinformation centers..

  57. Re:GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA GNAA GNAA SUPPORTS CATS by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I have a sneaking suspicion the original post and the rebuttal came from the same source.