back to article London flatmate (Julian Assange) sues landlord (government of Ecuador) in human rights spat

Housemate from hell Julian Assange is taking his landlord, the government of Ecuador, to court to stop its officials from, allegedly, running roughshod over his human rights. The WikiLeaks supremo is fed up with being essentially held in near-solitary confinement in an Ecuadorian embassy broom cupboard in London, England. In …

Page:

  1. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Now, Assange fears the new president of Ecuador, Lenín Moreno, has ordered staff to psychologically break him....

    Too late for that I'm afraid. A guest suiing the hosts. Just when you think you've heard/read/seen it all, there's Assange who's truly the guest from hell.

    1. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      FAIL

      Tic-tac-toe < Checkers < Chess

      Holed up in an embassy as an asylum seeker, and you sue the embassy's government. Clearly Assange isn't a Tic-tac-toe player, much less a Chess player.

      Not much of a future as a floor painter either.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Tic-tac-toe < Checkers < Chess

        "Not much of a future as a floor painter either."

        He proved that when he went into the embassy in the first place. Mind you, the results have been somewhat more entertaining for the rest of us than watching paint dry.

    2. DougS Silver badge

      I really hope he gets the boot

      And the UK arrests him and does whatever they plan to do, and then...nothing. That the US just doesn't give a damn about the self-important little twat, he doesn't get extradited to either Sweden or the US, and he has to find some other reason to play the victim.

      That's probably what he really fears, is that the world has moved on and no one gives a shit about him.

      1. Waseem Alkurdi

        Re: I really hope he gets the boot

        He's a human being after all. Would any human being "want" to get arrested by a TLA notorious for prisoners going poof?

        1. HereIAmJH

          Re: I really hope he gets the boot

          Would any human being "want" to get arrested by a TLA notorious for prisoners going poof?

          Because Manning went poof... well, I guess Bradley did, but it wasn't a TLA that did that. He took it like a man, served the time, and has been released, early. But you go ahead and jump at shadows and fear the monsters under the bed.

        2. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

          Re: I really hope he gets the boot

          "TLA notorious for prisoners going poof"

          He's wanted by the Saudis now? Well I never...

        3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          Re: I really hope he gets the boot

          He's a human being after all. Would any human being "want" to get arrested by a TLA notorious for prisoners going poof?

          Those two women he allegedly raped in Sweden are human beings as well. It's worth remembering that he was in Sweden for some time after the leaks he is allegedly worried about, without any apparent concern about rendition to the US. He only seems to have become worried about this after he ran away from Sweden to the UK after these allegations came to light, and he only 'sought asylum' in the Ecuadorian embassy after being picked up by the UK police so that the Swedish prosecutors could catch up with him, and bailed - which he promptly skipped out on. it's also worth remembering that the UK has a far less stringent extradition treaty with the US than Sweden does, so if he was, as he claims, seeking to avoid extradition there from Sweden, the UK is about the last place he would have wanted to come.

          Occam's Razor would suggest that, rather than a vast conspiracy against him by US TLAs, the Swedish Government, the British Government, and the Ecuadorian Government, to lock him up (and lets not forget that the person who actually leaked those documents has already been freed), it seems much more likely that here is a guy with an inflated sense of self-importance running from justice from a country where the idea of sexual consent is a bit more rigorous than his home nation.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: I really hope he gets the boot

        "That the US just doesn't give a damn about the self-important little twat,"

        The difficulty with this happening at present is that it could turn into a pissing match between self-important little twats.

      3. Andrew Norton

        Re: I really hope he gets the boot

        Oh, sweden will extradite him.

        The charges have been dropped only because they can't take the next step, which is 'arrest then charge'.

        And just like how 'charged' means something different in the Swedish system. They can reactive the charges any time until the statute of limitations, and request he be sent over to face the rape charges. That's why he hasn't left.

        He'll stay there until they expire, then leave. Remember, he said 18 months ago that he would be fine with going to the US if Manning got Clemency (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713). Manning's been out 18 months after Obama granted clemency, he's still hiding... from Sweden.

        1. Persona

          Re: I really hope he gets the boot

          "They can reactive the charges any time until the statute of limitations"

          The statute of limitations expires in August 2020 so he's still got a long time to hide, and after that he has the bail skipping bail to contend with.

        2. imanidiot Silver badge

          Re: I really hope he gets the boot

          That means he could leave. The swedish charges HAVE expired. However, unluckily for him, he'll die in there if he's going to wait for the UK charges of escaping on bail because those don't expire. And the UK would happily extradite him if asked. However the US would be much smarter in NOT asking for his extradition. I suspect that would bruise his ego and reputation more than this whole "stuck in an embassy" schtick which is still allowing him to play the victim.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: I really hope he gets the boot

            imanidiot,

            Nope. The Swedish charges haven't expired. Most of them were on a 5 year statute of limitations, they were the more minor sexual offenses ones, and expired 3 years ago. The 2 rape ones are on a 10 year timer. So he's got a couple of years yet to hide.

        3. Ken 16 Silver badge
          Holmes

          Re: I really hope he gets the boot

          He may just want to wait til after Brexit to avoid the EU arrest warrant

      4. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

        @DougS ... Re: I really hope he gets the boot

        I've been saying the same thing for years now...

        If the US wants him... they will tag him in Australia. That's his last stop and they will pull his Passport.

    3. Nick Kew Silver badge

      psychologically break him

      Hmmm. I should've thought indefinite confinement would tend to do that. The embassy may not technically be prison, but his situation must rank with being confined to a cruise ship or spaceship for immediate hell, and without the prospect of release to keep a chap sane.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "his situation must rank with being confined to a cruise ship"

        Not even that. He can leave at any time without needing to be able to swim.

      2. streaky Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        For like the 400th time he's perfectly entitled to leave whenever he likes. Stop pretending he's in some secret CIA prison in Antarctica. His confinement is *completely* self-imposed. Pretending the US is out to get you doesn't mean they actually are - if the US ever tries to extradite this man from anywhere it'll be in full view of the world and he'll be entitled to all rights availed any other US prisoner. Now personally up until Mueller went after his mates I didn't think the US could even figure out what to charge him with - now it's reasonable to assume the US thinks they might be able to prove he knowingly engaged in espionage against the US on behalf of a foreign power. Some of the Mueller docs you can totally see where names have been redacted it should say "wikileaks" or "Assange" - I wonder if he has anything to trade because Putin won't lift a finger to help him.

        1. DougS Silver badge

          @streaky

          it's reasonable to assume the US thinks they might be able to prove he knowingly engaged in espionage against the US on behalf of a foreign power

          That depends on whether Assange 1) was making the high level decisions for Wikileaks during that time and 2) Wikileaks had all the leaked emails in their possession at once, and dribbled them out based on when someone else told them to.

          If the emails were held by the Russians and dribbled out to Wikipedia according to a timetable advantageous for the Trump campaign (and they were, again and again new leaks occurred when there was bad news about Trump they wanted to distract from) then Wikileaks can say "we were just following our policy of releasing whatever we get as soon as we get it". At worst they could be accused of being a knowing and willing dupe, but not part of the conspiracy.

          However, the allegations that Roger Stone was in communication with Wikileaks will mean that's a hard claim to make. Probably impossible to make, once he's indicted and he inevitably cooperates to reduce his sentence. So if Assange had any involvement with the timing of the Hillary email leaks, he should want to leave the embassy sooner rather than later. Though either way, the charges he'd face would have him serve MUCH less time than what he's already decided to serve on his own.

          1. streaky Silver badge

            Re: @streaky

            @DougS the problem he has is how adamant he was that these people weren't Russians and how he knows who they are and absolutely did I mention guarantees they weren't Russian? I said at the time long before Mueller and Trump being elected in fact that he couldn't possibly know - the only way you can know if they're Russian or not is if you know for a fact they are. Nope, they're not Russians. His claims on this have been far too matter of fact for his own good - if he'd said "I don't believe they're Russians, but how could I know?" he'd be far less at risk of this.

            1. DougS Silver badge

              Re: @streaky

              I always thought the biggest problem with this claim "they weren't Russian" is that the whole point of Wikileaks is submissions are supposed to be guaranteed anonymous. How the heck can they guarantee anonymity AND know whether the emails came from Russians unless 1) submissions are actually not anonymous or 2) this particular "submission" did not come through their normal channels, which raises all the questions about collusion/conspiracy on the all too obvious timing of each release.

              Neither possibility leaves Wikileaks looking good. The mere fact that they'd be insistent "they weren't Russian" shows they're taking a side in this. A properly neutral 'leaker' would simply say "our submission process guarantees anonymity of the submitter, thus we have no possible way of knowing where these emails originated or who provided them to us".

          2. Orv Silver badge

            Re: @streaky

            I think it's unlikely the US is what he's really worried about right now, because he helped the current US President get elected. The odds of any executive branch entity going after him are basically nil. No, he's worried either that the UK will throw the book at him, or that those rape charges will actually stick. "Boys will be boys" isn't a great defense anymore.

  2. TheUnregister

    Disgusting, absolutely disgusting article. I am banning the "news" site theregister.co.uk from my company's allowed sites policy.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: TheUnregister

      I see you've got your internet access back, Julian.

      C.

    2. Snorlax Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: TheUnregister

      What's the problem?

      Julian himself would be the first to defend a person's right to freedom of expression.

      If you don't like the article, read something else.

      1. Mike Moyle Silver badge

        Re: TheUnregister

        "Julian himself would be the first to defend a person's right to freedom of expression."

        ...unless it inconvenienced or prejudiced HIS interests; then it's right out!

        https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/wikileaks-assange-complains-hes-victim-of-leaks/articleshow/7139648.cms

        1. Snorlax Silver badge

          Re: TheUnregister

          @MIke Moyle:"...unless it inconvenienced or prejudiced HIS interests; then it's right out!"

          My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek.

          Assange is an arsehole (and I think I'm on record saying so on numerous occasions), and his supporters can't claim the right to freedom of expression while at the same time denying the same right to those they disagree with...

    3. Rol Silver badge

      I notice Unregistered has registered just this one comment in the whopping 24 hours they've been a member.

      It'll be difficult to miss something that wasn't really there.

      1. Nick Kew Silver badge
        Pint

        I notice Unregistered has registered just this one comment in the whopping 24 hours they've been a member.

        At a guess, it's a joke from someone familiar with Reg comments. Maybe a regular or a lurker. Or even someone deliberately feeding a line to that first reply :)

        1. Jove Bronze badge

          Re: TheUnregister

          It is very reminiscent of something that everyone's favourite POTUS might write :)

    4. IceC0ld Bronze badge

      Disgusting, absolutely disgusting article. I am banning the "news" site theregister.co.uk from my company's allowed sites policy.

      ===

      bit of a god like admin gone nutz there, unless it IS irony ? but just comes across as crap

      and a whole single post too, we are HONOURED Julian :oP

    5. Jove Bronze badge

      Re: TheUnregister

      Thus speaks the Snowflakes at the Guardian.

      1. Danny 14 Silver badge

        Re: TheUnregister

        im surprised they didnt mention the B word. Seems a great way to derail threads these days.

      2. Jove Bronze badge

        Re: TheUnregister

        Aaah, diddums; The Guardian Snowflakes just about manage to click the down-vote, but stringing together a few words that have any meaning in the real world is beyond them.

    6. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge

      and still, ...

      ... they come

      1. Kane Silver badge
        Alien

        Re: and still, ...

        "... they come"

        ULLA

    7. My-Handle

      "I am banning the 'news' site theregister.co.uk from my company's allowed sites policy."

      Really? I added it as the default home page for my company :)

    8. Kane Silver badge
      Trollface

      "Disgusting, absolutely disgusting article. I am banning the "news" site theregister.co.uk from my company's allowed sites policy."

      Hmmm...

  3. cosymart
    Meh

    Lets Get Real

    Who pays for his food? Does he get to choose the menu?

    To be honest if he had not skipped bail he would at most done 6 months at Her Majesty's Pleasure and as long as he avoided bending down for the soap he would have come out unscathed. As it is he has been banged up in the Ecuadorian embassy for far longer than most criminals get for GBH. What a muppet.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Jove Bronze badge

        Re: Lets Get Real

        Perhaps the allegations were fabricated, but then is that not the case in many rape claims?

        It is even becoming the norm within higher circles to use such claims to try and damage public figures - the most recent instance being the latest appointment to the USA Supreme Court.

        1. anothercynic Silver badge

          Re: Lets Get Real

          This is not about rape allegations anymore. It is about breaching bail conditions.

        2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          Re: Lets Get Real

          Perhaps the allegations were fabricated, but then is that not the case in many rape claims?

          No.

          Next time, actually bother to find out whether the thing you are typing is true or not before hitting that 'post' button.

          The evidence suggests that the vast majority of rape/serious sexual assault claims by women against men are true. To claim otherwise is basically blaming the victims. The thing is, human beings (en masse) are a nasty lot, and do all sorts of nasty things to each other. Men are far more likely to do more and nastier things than women (that is not to say that women can't be violent criminals, but on balance, most of those are male). Many rapists commit their crimes knowing full well that there will be little evidence to prove that what they did was not consensual, and that it will be hard to prove a case against them. Bear in mind that most rapes are not the violent dragged-off-into-the-bushes kind, but happen when men take advantage of someone they know, often when under the influence of drink or drugs, in a private situation. You (probably) are not a rapist yourself, so wouldn't believe the sheer number of women this happens to. The odds are that several women you know have been raped, and you know nothing about it.

          Anyway, rant over. Short answer:

          No. You are wrong.

          1. Jove Bronze badge

            Re: Lets Get Real

            Sorry, but you are misinformed; many rape allegations are demonstrated to be false. Furthermore, such allegations are being used to destroy reputations. Engage with reality.

            1. DavCrav Silver badge

              Re: Lets Get Real

              "Sorry, but you are misinformed; many rape allegations are demonstrated to be false. Furthermore, such allegations are being used to destroy reputations. Engage with reality."

              OK, there are a number of categories you can put rape allegations into:

              1) Proved true. The definition here is a secured conviction of rape (we'll worry about miscarriages of justice some other time). Very few rape allegations fall into this category due to the burden of proof.

              2) Proved false. The definition here is a secured conviction perverting the course of justice or making a false complaint (we'll worry about miscarriages of justice some other time). Very few rape allegations fall into this category due to the burden of proof.

              3) Not proved true but it sounds likely. This category is subjective and fairly big, actually. For example, most people listening to the Kavanaugh hearing should come away thinking he's lying and she's at least mostly telling the truth. I'd stick the allegations against him in the 'credible but not proved' category.

              4) Not proved false but it sounds likely. All of the accusations by 'Nick' in the UK are in this category until he gets done in court at the end of his trial. The accusations against Cliff Richard fall into this category, I think.

              5) Evidence is vague/not in public domain, and inconclusive. Lots of these, many dropped at investigative stage.

              6) Differing definitions. Rape is a subjective crime. With most crimes there is a much more objective definition of whether a crime has taken place. Quite a few potential cases of rape depend on people's memories and beliefs as to consent, and so it might be that from one person's perspective there is mens rea, from another's there is not. This is different from 5) because here it's not whether there's evidence of a crime, and more that's there's a question as to the incidence of a crime.

              Apart from 1) and 2), hard data is going to be hard to come by for the other categories.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Lets Get Real

                This current meme about "all the false rape accusations" is just cover for Kavanaugh, who may or may not have sexually assaulted women but is a proven liar and shouldn't be on the court for that reason alone.

                Republicans have now decided to counter the "#metoo" movement with "#himtoo", claiming that false rape allegations to destroy reputations are rampant. While they do happen, they are a rounding error in the number of overall rape allegations. Most will never be proven true or false, because unless physical evidence is left behind and is tested, or there are somehow neutral witnesses who don't have reason to go along with the story of one side or the other, there's no way to determine the truth.

                1. Orv Silver badge

                  Re: Lets Get Real

                  Women have little incentive to fabricate allegations, considering that even a legitimate accusation is a good way to have your life ruined while the man walks away without any consequences. I know more than one person who has been raped but decided not to report for that reason. In at least one case the man actually told them he'd ruin their life if they tried, and he was in a position to do so. Men hold all the high cards in most of these situations.

                  1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

                    Re: Lets Get Real

                    Well, the Red Dwarf actor Craig Charles may disagree about the "any consequences", having been locked up in Wandsworth Prison for three months before trial.

                    I agree that the default position should be to accept the less-socially-powerful individual's story (if the story is plausible, and note that gender isn't relevant, but power is).

                    But there are many reasons to allege an assault, ranging from "buyers remorse" through the complex situation where consent was given by someone too drunk/drugged to be properly able to give consent and in the cold light of day sincerely believe that they hadn't.

                    And also, of course, the concept of a malicious allegation is not unheard of. Of the two allegations against Kavanaugh, one was a lot more persuasive than the other. It would not be inconceivable that someone might inflate a real incident into a false allegation for purely political motives. For example, someone might allege that a candidate for office grabbed women's genitalia in order to discredit the candidate... Hmm...!

                2. Jove Bronze badge

                  Re: Lets Get Real

                  Sorry, but no it is not.

                  Rape allegations are being used to destroy reputations and career advancement under the guise of protected identity.

                  It is months, possibly years before cases are brought to Court or thrown out. In the meantime the alleged offenders are subject to media and public recrimination, will likely loose their jobs and substantial impalement of income. Then when the allegations are brought to Court, if they get that far, a fair number of them are thrown out - all without prosecution of those making the allegations with their identities still protected and free to attack others again.

                  Recent numbers have show that only 1 in 56 cases of rape allegations in England and Wales lead to a conviction of the alleged criminal, yet those making the false allegations get off free.

                  In the case of Kavanaugh it clear from the start that it was a partisan subversion of the State to smear a SCOTUS candidate. You conveniently fail to mention that those involved in making these smear allegations are under investigation by the DoJ.

                  1. This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019