Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the worst-houseguests dept.

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."

13 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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...

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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!