Slashdot Mirror
Ecuador Complains Julian Assange Was a Bad Housegust, Neglected His Pet Cat (bbc.com)
The BBC reports that Ecuador's foreign minister Jose Valencia has been sharing complaints about Julian Assange's conduct during his stay in Ecuador's embassy -- for example, that Julian Assange "damaged the facilities by riding his skateboard and playing football, despite being told not to do so."
Cleaning staff, Mr Valencia said, had described "improper hygienic conduct" throughout Assange's stay, an issue that a lawyer had attributed to "stomach problems". One unnamed senior Ecuadorean official told AP news agency that other issues included "weeks without a shower" and a "dental problem born of poor hygiene". Interior Minister Maria Paula Romo then complained that Assange had been allowed to do things like "put faeces on the walls of the embassy and other behaviours of that nature...."
Assange's stay at the embassy cost Ecuador some $6.5m (£5m) from 2012 to 2018, Mr Valencia said.
NPR reports that Julian Assange's cat also "arguably played a small role in Ecuador's decision to end its asylum agreement," citing remarks from Ecuador President Lenin Moreno: Moreno explained that Assange treated his hosts disrespectfully; late last year the embassy implemented a series of rules for Assange, including a requirement to be responsible for the "well-being, food, hygiene and proper care of your pet." If Assange didn't, the embassy threatened to put the cat in a shelter. In other words, it is likely that Assange didn't effectively clean up after his cat's own wiki-leaks...
The New Yorker reported in 2017 that Assange's interest in the cat was less as an animal lover and more as a master of his own brand. "Julian stared at the cat for about half an hour, trying to figure out how it could be useful, and then came up with this: Yeah, let's say it's from my children," the magazine quoted one of Assange's friends as saying. "For a time, he said it didn't have a name because there was a competition in Ecuador, with schoolchildren, on what to name him. Everything is P.R. -- everything."
Journalist James Ball, an early WikiLeaks employee (who left after three months) said Thursday on Twitter that he'd "genuinely offered to adopt" the cat -- but it was "reportedly given to a shelter by the Ecuadorian embassy ages ago."
Assange's legal team, however, tweeted in November that Assange had been outraged by embassy threats to send the cat to the pound, and asked his lawyers "to take his cat to safety. The cat is with Assange's family. They will be reunited in freedom."
Assange's stay at the embassy cost Ecuador some $6.5m (£5m) from 2012 to 2018, Mr Valencia said.
NPR reports that Julian Assange's cat also "arguably played a small role in Ecuador's decision to end its asylum agreement," citing remarks from Ecuador President Lenin Moreno: Moreno explained that Assange treated his hosts disrespectfully; late last year the embassy implemented a series of rules for Assange, including a requirement to be responsible for the "well-being, food, hygiene and proper care of your pet." If Assange didn't, the embassy threatened to put the cat in a shelter. In other words, it is likely that Assange didn't effectively clean up after his cat's own wiki-leaks...
The New Yorker reported in 2017 that Assange's interest in the cat was less as an animal lover and more as a master of his own brand. "Julian stared at the cat for about half an hour, trying to figure out how it could be useful, and then came up with this: Yeah, let's say it's from my children," the magazine quoted one of Assange's friends as saying. "For a time, he said it didn't have a name because there was a competition in Ecuador, with schoolchildren, on what to name him. Everything is P.R. -- everything."
Journalist James Ball, an early WikiLeaks employee (who left after three months) said Thursday on Twitter that he'd "genuinely offered to adopt" the cat -- but it was "reportedly given to a shelter by the Ecuadorian embassy ages ago."
Assange's legal team, however, tweeted in November that Assange had been outraged by embassy threats to send the cat to the pound, and asked his lawyers "to take his cat to safety. The cat is with Assange's family. They will be reunited in freedom."
Can't help but think that a lot of this character assignation is cover so that no one is talking about how he was sold out for a $4.2 billion loan...
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
A depressed man stares at his cat? He must be a rogue!
No character assassination going on here, just honest diplomatic concern.
Ecuador just got some of that debt relief from the IMF
Get out the lube...you're about to be bent over. Ask Sam Clemens and many others. Julian peed in a lotta cornflakes. Funny that not one of the offended parties claims anything he published was fake or a lie. This is pure shoot the messenger to deflect from your own guilt stuff.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
About not taking care of his cat.
About him having terrible hygiene.
About him wiping feces all over the walls
About verbally attacking officials at the embassy
Remember, they started restricting his movements and internet access years before. This is NOTHING new.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Yes, this guy sure doesn't look like someone with poor hygiene who might go weeks without a shower and smear feces on a wall in protest....
You know, I was originally behind what he was trying to do, but now I just see the guy as a self-serving asshole. He shits on everybody with no apparent rhyme or reason: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/europe/ecuador-assange-wikileaks.html. I do think that getting government secrets out in the open is important, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. He's done it the wrong way.
I don't respond to AC's.
Would YOU accept that type of behavior by any guest in your house? I doubt it. But, because he is your idol and it wasn't your house. You forgive him. Yes or no????
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
While the feces on walls thing is new, the not showering thing has been reported for several years.
Not that any of this has to do with whether Assange should be granted asylum or not (probably not, he was running from a rape investigation) or whether he should be being charged by the US as a party to Manning's "crimes" (probably not on that, no.) It suggests he's an asshole (but we already knew that about stuff that's actually important), I'm just saying that at least some of this, about the cat and the lack of personal hygene, is old news.
Also it's not even a wiki.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Let's see how well your mental health is when you're restricted to only a couple rooms for almost 7 years.
The problem was him going from frontman to glorious leader of wikileaks along with the cabal of his cronies. The whole openleaks schism was from them not liking how he and others in the organization had begun curating the materials, using it to slant the data under claims of 'protecting sensitive information' while conveniently leaking data which was damaging in ways that suited the narrative. As dangerous as it could be if every random document was leaked, it is more damaging if they are selectively leaked since it doesn't give the opportunity to draw your own conclusions or see the whole picture, a picture which the individuals curating it may or may not have been able to piece together, particularly in the pre-machine learning era that wikileaks was most popular during.
Today OSINT+Machine learning could take a lot of these leaks and make far greater inferences off of them, maybe providing the leverage needed for REAL global scale changes based on corruption, financial dealings or use of intelligence assets against allies or to incite blame on enemies.
Why would one, wage war on every first world nation? Even fans of Assange, wouldn't do what he does, because most of us are sane enough to not risk everything we have, separate ourselves from friends and families.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The being the BBC news, not Fox News or MSNBC, I expect a degree of professional journalism from them. There is little to gain from making him seem like a model resident vs. a horrible human. In terms of the court and countries that want him to see locked up behind bars, they have more evidence to show thean being a bad house guest.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It makes no sense
It's plausible - lock somebody in a room for seven years and they start to get depressed and do crazy things. It's entirely possible Assange entered emotionally strong and gradually lost it. Humans cannot live like that, which is why the detention was roundly condemned by many human-rights organizations, not the least of which is the UN as a violation of international law.
Despite that he muddled on with Wikileaks work while imprisoned. Not as much as I would have liked to have seen, but I'm not volunteering either.
If the allegations are true, he seems like even more of a victim. I'm sure the allegations are meant to damage his reputation, but a feeling person reading them will merely increase their animus towards his captors.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I doubt he would have lasted nearly as long.
Presumably you mean "character assassination", but it's really hard to see much insight there. My new theory is that the real reason for the first-post frenzy is in quest of the easy "insightful" mod that is frequently given to an early comment. Yet another aspect of the broken moderation.
The cat is actually more significant than you seem to understand, per my longer comment on the associated poll: https://slashdot.org/comments....
This story casts doubt on Assange's love of the cat. If Assange actually doesn't care about the cat, how can Trump play Conway's newest game? They need some form of insurance to keep Assange in line when they pardon him, but they can't take the cat hostage if Assange doesn't even care about the cat.
I think we're in completely new territory now. It's sort of conceivable that they were willing to "invest" $4 billion in getting Assange. Trump really is such a lousy negotiator, especially since it isn't his own money. He's actually rather skilled at getting his own cut up front while gambling with other people's money, and now he has the entire federal budget to play with.
We've actually reached the insane point where Trump is actively encouraging crimes and promising pardons to criminals for crimes that have not yet been committed. The pardon of Joe Arpaio now looks like a trial balloon and proof of concept. What's to keep Trump from now making a deal with a skilled murderer: "I'll pardon you for your last murders if you promise to kill Nancy Pelosi and I'll pardon you for that murder, too."
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This is a opinion piece by a US law professor: How likely is an Assange conviction in the USA.
The thing that Assange will be extradited for, is the password thing with Manning. The professor says this is no different than a journalist setting up a drop point for information.
Never the less, Assange will be convicted, and most likely new charges will magically appear once he is on US soil.
The issue here is not whether Assange has bad personal hygiene, or whether he is a self serving narcissist. The issue is freedom of the press in Western democracies, and the willingness to make an example out of him to deter others.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
After https://slashdot.org/comments.... I finally heard the BBC reporting on the radio this morning that Wikileaks have advised that the cat is ok.
No mention of how Assange is doing, but at least they finally covered the important aspect of the story.
The UN ruling is ridiculous and should be laughed at, because it doesn't just cover the time in the Ecuadorean embassy - the UN ruling said Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was first arrested under the extradition warrant.
Basically, the UN ruling implied that no one can be arrested pending extradition. In fact, if taken seriously, it throws into doubt the entire concept of arrest and detention at any point prior to conviction.
Which is why every one laughed at it and rightfully took no notice of it.
Also remember that most journalists don't just dump secret documents they get wholesale without curating them. This is why a lot of people hate Assange but praise Snowden.
I suspect he's lost his marbles.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Assange definitely curated the documents he released. He just did it for political favor, rather than any sense of commonly-accepted ethics.
As for Snowden, the people who praise him tend to have little understanding of what exactly he did, instead relying on the narratives that his supporters have fabricated.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Been there. It ain't that bad, but then again, I'm not really into the whole publicity thing, I'm more the type of person who is happiest if I'm left alone and nobody bothers me. I guess for someone who needs attention 24/7 it must be soul crushing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
this is the weakest character assassination...
The US most definitely do not want Assange's testimony on, for example, who he obtained the DNC emails from. They're happy with the ambiguity that allows people to act like 'Russia did it.'
So they are not going to charge him with anything that would allow him to testify about matters that they do not want discussed.
He did it for political favor? Seriously?
He did it to target a bunch of hypocrites in the US.
What favors did he receive???
"professional journalism"
It appears all the semi-official media outlets are regurgitating the Official Narrative. I believe that is what's now considered journalistic professionalism.
It does look a bit odd that after that, once the U.S. decides it wants to 'talk with him', suddenly the dead accusation comes back to life and requires extradition.
The court document were filed in secret March 6th 2018 and unsealed on the same day of the arrest according to the press release from the DOJ which also has a link to the seven page charge sheet at the end of the release (which doesn't allow a direct link).
Accordingly Assange has been charged:
18 U.S. Code 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
18 U.S. Code 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers sections (a)(1), (a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(ii).
Maximum penalty 5 years jail so I would suspect that they will press further charges later.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Fuck! That's two errors on the front page this morning!
*sigh*
I get that not everyone has good grammar (or uses Grammarly), but FFS, every modern device that edits text has a spell checker built in... Use the goddamn thing!
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
He is not being charged with anything related to the mishandling or publishing of classified material.
Not according to the charges laid. They allege that he was in possession of US military databases.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I don't know Assange personally, so who am I to judge on his character?
But I do wonder how much of this is something that years of confinement do to you? From what I gather, prison inmates have more than he had. At least they have a yard and sports and work. Assange was literally sitting in a few rooms for years. It would be strange if that hadn't affected him mentally.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Couldn't they have smuggled him out during a pea-souper?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Sounds like nobody at the embassy rents properties. They needed to hire a property manager. Treat him like a tenant, because that's what he was. Don't take care, get out. He could have been out years ago.
The hygiene thing is just disgusting. Especially the mouth. Don't take care of your teeth, they'll go away.
Assange just told the Swedish he's a Syrian refugee. So naturally they dropped the rape charges.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You can blame the Brits for that.
Blame them for what? Following their law? Assange violated his bail agreement when the courts were in the process of handing him over (purportedly) to Sweden.
As long as Assange was in the Equadorian embassy in London, UK law (coupled with foreign treaties) dictated they were seize him the moment Assange was on British soil, and hand him over to the relevant authorities. There's no point in challenging US extradition (by UK 3rd parties) once Assange demonstrated he would violate bail agreements.
The US military would do well to remember that the next time they can't get decent Intel or stuff leaks.
The US military doesn't depend upon people who hate their guts for intel or suppression of leaks. But you keep tilting at your strawman windmills.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I think that by now we should have learned that there are no limits to what Trump is willing to do, no barrel big enough to keep him from crashing through the bottom. Also, no matter what sort of idiot he is (and I often doubt if he rises to the level of useful idiocy), he is easily manipulated by some quite nasty and cunning people, not even starting with all those criminals whose money he's been laundering for so many years. I think Trump's mental condition goes ALL the way back to his infancy, when he was raised as a minor tool for dodging taxes. Trump has NO memories of childhood innocence.
The theory is that Trump cannot pardon state-level crimes, but there are lots of theories that Trump has blown through. The obvious "solution approach" (for quite evil values of solution) is to figure out new ways to convert the state crimes into federal ones so as to bring them within the scope of Trump's pardons. There are various ways to give the federal courts jurisdiction over crimes that originated in lower course. I'd even say that most of them have been legal. In the past. In Trumpistan, the definition of "legal" is merely "can I get away with it" and the only residual problem is how slow the courts tend to be.
I've already thought of an obvious one, based on the "unitary executive" insanity. Just claim that any crime involving the president is automatically elevated to the federal courts because he is a federal officer. As long as the Supreme Court (sans Merrick Garland) agrees with 5 votes, the "deal" is done.
A less obvious approach would involve appealing to the verdict of the Civil War. My own view is that the War Between the States effectively overturned the 2nd and 10th Amendments, though some people might think it's merely a YUGE cloud of confusion (and Trump's puppeteers and minions (and possibly even henchmen) LOVE confusion).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
What makes you think he's going to be able to make public about anything concerning his prosecution? Yoo-nited States security court; that's where his case is headed.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I'd argue no "legitimate", competent journalist would release classified information without first curating them.
This is why a lot of people hate Assange but praise Snowden.
Amen.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
As for Snowden, the people who praise him tend to have little understanding of what exactly he did,
And you do??? Keep wavying your "deep state" treason flag.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
If he hadn't bail jumped then the Brits wouldn't have had any reason to bother him.
If Assange didn't jump bail, he would have most likely have been handed over to Swedish authorities, with the remote possibility of being handed over to the US first. I don't think violating his bail agreement was justified, but its pretty disingenuous to imply Assange faced no consequence for abiding by his bail agreement.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I'd argue they didn't even give a fuck about Assange then. It was about the President of Ecuador (at the time) itching to flip the bird towards the US.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
One thing: he didn't have to pay any rents as far as I'm aware, so that's good for him.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
And your comment has nothing to do with my comment or the UN ruling.
International law does not prohibit the very very common practice of arrest and detention for interview under caution, charges being brought, and court bail or custodial remand while awaiting trial. Those are the things that Assange was subject to prior to his abscondment into the Ecuadorean embassy, and those are the things that the UN ruling includes in its period of "arbitrary detainment".
If held as correct, the UN ruling utterly destroys the judicial systems of *every* country in the world. As not one does not have the concept of detention before conviction.
And that is why the ruling is ludicrous. This has nothing to do with totalitarian governments (the UK is not one), nor tin pot dictators (again, UK is not ruled by one), nor kidnapping (Assange was never kidnapped).
I did read it, I also read the charges, that may be a little to much for you.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I linked the DOJ document and the original charge sheet. Go follow my link, all the information is there.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Thanks for modding this way down so I couldn't see the responses in time to reply while the post is hot.
Everyone pull your heads out and watch this before saying anything more in public:
https://youtu.be/_xSRS5YpiQM
seriously. Ecuador is a country in the world, and as any nation has real-world responsibilities to support truth, freedom and justice. They didn't keep him out of prison - they kept him in THEIR prison to use as a political pawn. Diplomatically, they COULD have transferred him to Ecuador a long time ago.
He is alleged to have possessed classified material, but that's not the same as being charged with the mishandling or publishing of that material.
The indictment consists of a list of alleged circumstances around the violation, then the charged violation itself. In this case, the allegations cover precisely what material Assange (allegedly) had, and what he was (allegedly) trying to obtain by committing his (alleged) crime of conspiring to crack a password without authorization. The charges themselves do not rely on the information being classified, though that is material information that might ultimately be useful in any sentencing.
Assange is still not being added as "a party to Manning's crimes", though from reading that list, I'm not sure if Assange's indictment would be in reference to a particular one of Manning's crimes.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
They allege that he was in possession of US military databases.
He is alleged to have possessed classified material, but that's not the same as being charged with the mishandling or publishing of that material.
I agree about the hacking charges - they were there. The rest of your comment is unclear about what you mean when you are referring to mishandling? You have to be in possession of the data to mishandle it and Assange wasn't cleared to be in possession of that data. Are you saying Assange was cleared to have the data and used it outside of the scope his authorization? What specific charge of "mishandling" data are you suggesting he was not charged with?
Assange is still not being added as "a party to Manning's crimes", though from reading that list, I'm not sure if Assange's indictment would be in reference to a particular one of Manning's crimes.
Did you follow and read the link to the charge sheet? Manning is the party mentioned to be the person that Assange conspired with under 18 U.S. Code 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You seem to be trying very hard to find an argument to win.
What specific charge of "mishandling" data are you suggesting he was not charged with?
Section 793(e) would seem to apply as it covers those who have unauthorized possession of documents, but that's not the point. My original comment was in response to the assumption that the US is going to prosecute Assange for things Manning did. Manning has plenty of espionage charges, but those are largely irrelevant to Assange's case, other than the simple fact that they are "an offense".
Manning is the party mentioned to be the person that Assange conspired with under 18 U.S. Code 371
That makes Manning potentially a party to Assange's alleged crime (though Manning is not included in the current indictment, I believe she could be added later), but it does not make Assange a party to Manning's already-charged crimes.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
As I said, they won't be charging him with any of that.
When he is extradited, he can only be charged with what he was extradited for. That's how extradition works. China can't 'extradite' somebody for petty graft and hammer them for dissident activity once they are back in the country.
Extradition is part of International Law, not kangaroo court.
You seem to be trying very hard to find an argument to win.
What specific charge of "mishandling" data are you suggesting he was not charged with?
Section 793(e) would seem to apply as it covers those who have unauthorized possession of documents,
Ok, yes I see what you mean, so the charge sheet mentions 793(c) as well as 793(e).
but that's not the point. My original comment was in response to the assumption that the US is going to prosecute Assange for things Manning did. Manning has plenty of espionage charges, but those are largely irrelevant to Assange's case, other than the simple fact that they are "an offense".
Perhaps they are using 371 and 1030 to explore for more charges, I see what you are getting at though - I appreciate the clarification and I also see 641 sets a really low limit of $1000 worth of value that has to be exceeded for that to apply. They're really making sure they can get him
Manning is the party mentioned to be the person that Assange conspired with under 18 U.S. Code 371
That makes Manning potentially a party to Assange's alleged crime (though Manning is not included in the current indictment, I believe she could be added later), but it does not make Assange a party to Manning's already-charged crimes.
Manning is Item 1 in the materials on the indictment and also mentioned as the co-conspirator under ACTS TO FURTHER THE CONSPIRACY for items 23,24,25 in the scanned copy of the pdf, if you are able to access it.
I see the confusion you both are in. It's not Assange named as a co-conspirator to Manning, it's Manning named as a co-conspirator to Assange. However the information you supplied about 793(e) *is* about mishandling data, as the clause directs:
not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
defines how the data *is* to be handled.
Thanks for pointing that out.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.