Banana republic caves in
20/10/16 13:07![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsEcuador admits cutting Julian Assange's internet access over impact of leaks on US election
Ecuador's move aims to avoid interfering in the US election? Ha! What a riot! Smells of the Economic Hit-man scenario all over again.
Is it just me, or doesn't this act come across as a bit cowardly, and a sign of fear both from Ecuador and the US, but particularly the latter? Ecuador has hosted Assange for years, and they're shutting him down JUST NOW, as he starts to unveil some sensitive stuff about the inner dealings of the political establishment in Washington? Because they have principles, which dictate them "not to interfere in the elections of foreign countries"? Please. Don't tell me this wasn't done under pressure from the current US administration.
Whether Assange's Wikileaks have strayed off their initial purpose of being genuine whistleblowers who used to care about the truth, and have now become a tool for foreign interests (Putin's, of all people, in this case) - it's kind of curious how Russia is being accused of interfering in the election of a sovereign country via Wikileaks, and yet the Clinton Foundation of 3 billion dollars donated by many national and FOREIGN interest groups is NOT interfering in the election of said "sovereign" nation - especially if said foundation was intended to be Hillary's "insurance" for getting the presidency.
Look, I hate the very idea of Trump in the Oval Office in my guts, as much as the next foreigner does. And I'm far from the thought that America would be better off with the Bigger Among The Two Evils that it has been presented with - and yet, Putin-encouraged or not, Assange's assessment of Clinton's cabal does have some merit. It's also curious how some people loved (or at least tolerated) Wikileaks when it embarrassed the Bush administration, but embarrassing Obama and Clinton must be stopped with the full power of the US government, its diplomatic machine being employed to pressure foreign countries into shutting out inconvenient mouths that they happen to host.
Journalism used to be about uncovering facts. Now journalism is sleazy enough to actually go after the guys who dig them up.
Ecuador's move aims to avoid interfering in the US election? Ha! What a riot! Smells of the Economic Hit-man scenario all over again.
Is it just me, or doesn't this act come across as a bit cowardly, and a sign of fear both from Ecuador and the US, but particularly the latter? Ecuador has hosted Assange for years, and they're shutting him down JUST NOW, as he starts to unveil some sensitive stuff about the inner dealings of the political establishment in Washington? Because they have principles, which dictate them "not to interfere in the elections of foreign countries"? Please. Don't tell me this wasn't done under pressure from the current US administration.
Whether Assange's Wikileaks have strayed off their initial purpose of being genuine whistleblowers who used to care about the truth, and have now become a tool for foreign interests (Putin's, of all people, in this case) - it's kind of curious how Russia is being accused of interfering in the election of a sovereign country via Wikileaks, and yet the Clinton Foundation of 3 billion dollars donated by many national and FOREIGN interest groups is NOT interfering in the election of said "sovereign" nation - especially if said foundation was intended to be Hillary's "insurance" for getting the presidency.
Look, I hate the very idea of Trump in the Oval Office in my guts, as much as the next foreigner does. And I'm far from the thought that America would be better off with the Bigger Among The Two Evils that it has been presented with - and yet, Putin-encouraged or not, Assange's assessment of Clinton's cabal does have some merit. It's also curious how some people loved (or at least tolerated) Wikileaks when it embarrassed the Bush administration, but embarrassing Obama and Clinton must be stopped with the full power of the US government, its diplomatic machine being employed to pressure foreign countries into shutting out inconvenient mouths that they happen to host.
Journalism used to be about uncovering facts. Now journalism is sleazy enough to actually go after the guys who dig them up.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 13:20 (UTC)So a qualified maybe to Ecuador's "folding". They may just have got bored with him staying at the London Embassy. Let's face facts, he's lived in the Diplomatic District of the West End of London for more than four years without paying any rent. That's £200k's worth of anyone's money before food, electricity, broadband, etc....
I make bleak jokes, obvs. But then again, I've been fortunate in being cynical about wikileaks early on. Which is different from either supporting or not supporting Chelsea Manning or other whistleblowers. Personally, I do all of these judgements on a case-by-case basis. Whereas I may support whistleblowing when it comes to bad practice, negligence, or even what may be war-crimes, I would sometimes cite context as a limiting factor in revelation. Sometimes you have to take the rap if you expose some things, and that is appropriate. Some sacrifices are required to show things shrouded in secrecy, such as possible war-crimes committed by order of the executive: it is why folk like Chelsea have something heroic about them. But even so, secrecy laws have been broken. Difficult call.
Just maybe Obama will pardon her as he leaves office. And that would be a good thing.
But Julian is a problem. He needs to get out of the Embassy, but to a neutral country. (As is, he'll probably end up in Russia. A 21st Century Kim Philby living in exile, with a couple of other whistleblowers, rather than other pioneering publishers of whistleblower material.
As far as his work is concerned, and to use a metaphor that would be entirely meaningless to you: he could have been a Paul Foot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Foot), instead he became a Christopher Booker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker). But unfortunately his private life has rather overshadowed his public work.
The thing is Hills is actually pretty clean, or at least has a pretty clean pair of hands: which is all we can ask for in our kings. Yes the Clinton foundation accepts donations from awful people, terrible places, and horrific regimes, but it puts 90% of its takings back out to do some good. Not buying portraits or paying personal debts (cough).
In fact as I see it Hills appears to be one of the cleanest candidates in the post-war period, though you wouldn't know it from the press she gets. And here I speak as an outsider, a British Macmillanite High Tory with Keynesian economic leanings; and with a general interest in truth or what is and what is not the case. From where I stand the lass has been calumnied comprehensively in all parts of the media for two-and-a-half decades. And in all of that time they have made nothing of any substance stick. I wonder how many of the rest of us could cope with such constant and consistent scrutiny? Even Julian has more of a private existence, locked in his room like any other teenager. One hopes he's furiously masturbating, but he may not retain quite that much of a nerdy teenaged outlook. Oh well. But just to reiterate, Benghazi? Nope. Emails, Nope. Accessory after the fact, no. Clinton Foundation corruption, no. But twenty-five years of drip-feeding poison into the public consciousness, bingo! And all because she tried to put a single-payer Health system in place in her husband's first term. Or that is how it is looking from over here. I'm happy to be corrected, of course.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 14:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 18:43 (UTC)The problem with wikileaks and Julian is the one of editorial bias in timing of releases, which is, if you like, an editorial meta-bias, but which still influences opinion. He shows his hand thus, and his motivations too. Poor lad. I think self imposed incarceration would send anyone mad really.
I think the lesson to be learned here is that if you are going to tweak the establishment's tail, the best place to do so is from an unimpeachably strong moral position. Luckily that leaves me out of the running. Oh well. Shame and all that.
Edit: by this I mean to say I inhaled, injected, snorted or popped everything I could lay my hands on; and I slept with everyone grown up who said yes, including the married folk.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 21:02 (UTC)Sarcasm, bru.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 23:55 (UTC)But all of that notwithstanding, you can be a good bloke and still fuck-up. I know of hearsay of a number of horrible stories I don't want to be true. This is maybe the least horrible, but I still want it to be a mistake of some kind, rather than a disregard for another persons wishes and, if you'll excuse the pun, a trumping of that person's volition.
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/16 06:14 (UTC)You seem to genuinely believe that the Swedish court would let him walk away if there was no evidence against him. I'm afraid these things don't work that way. He's become too much of a burden on the US, and Sweden is a small country that's highly dependent on its good relations with the US. You do sense where I'm going with this, right?
Sex crime seems to have become the easiest go-to tool these days, whenever you need to perform some good old-school character assassination and/or make someone disappear behind bars (short of sending the spec ops to take them out).
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/16 07:51 (UTC)Moscow it is Julian, old thing. Or maybe Beijing.
I don't envy him.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 19:03 (UTC)Sweden is the country that is requesting his extradition. If you're looking for a country to get a fair shake, you can't do much better than Sweden.
"They may just have got bored with him staying at the London Embassy."
Let's also add in that there would be limits to the amount of time my wife would humor me if I wanted to let someone stay in the spare room to avoid sexual assault charges.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 19:07 (UTC)[Tips hat.]
options!
Date: 20/10/16 18:49 (UTC)I've never been to London - so I have no idea what chance he would have with that - but he has to be looking into that kind of thing - now more than ever.
RE: options!
Date: 20/10/16 18:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 19:07 (UTC)How about if I just make a good case that it's not in Ecuador's best interest to have someone very publicly trying to influence the US elections from their embassy, using their servers? Especially since he seems to be backing the losing side. There is simply a huge potential cost to letting Mr. Assange use their internet access and no upside. Cutting his access is simply the best option for Ecuador.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 19:23 (UTC)Even if you have fucked up with language and misread a situation, which is one of the problems of an international perspective, no still means no. Now there may be all sorts of grey areas in-between. But you have to stand up and acknowledge and explain your private actions in the face of non-political criminal accusations when called upon by the law to do so. And I'm aware that in many nations of the world accusations of various kinds of sexual depravities are the norm when taking down political opponents. But not, I think, in Sweden. I am prepared to be proven wrong here, of course.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 21:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 21:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 21:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 22:24 (UTC)Okay, the part about Ecuador being stuck with an unwanted guest they can't get rid of, I have to say I enjoy that part a smidge.
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/16 06:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/10/16 22:12 (UTC)Oh, and apparently he's got to stop leaving his dirty socks around the Ecuadorean embassy.