Julian Assange Scores Major Legal Victory as Court Orders Safe Passage of Wikileaks Founder Out of E

In August 2016, the State of Ecuador filed a request with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion and purpose on the scope of the law as regards asylum seekers. This was in respect of Julian Assange who has been housed, as an asylum seeker, in the London Embassy of Ecuador for six years (HERE).

The IAcHR has now issued that advisory opinion and has ordered the safe passage of the Wikileaks Founder out of the Embassy and for onward travel to Ecuador where he holds citizenship. The full ruling can be viewed HERE.

https://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/...rders-safe-passage-of-assange-out-of-embassy/

However, I doubt very much if this will change the mind of the British government -- who are, for all intents and purposes, under the sway of the US government concerning Assange -- to change their position, as they have already defied a UN panel which concluded Assange was being "arbitrarily detained" by the British authorities.

 

Well good for Assange. I hope he makes it to both safety and freedom. I used to be against whistle blowers until I realized that most of what we know of the deep state and other nefarious activities of both government and political party operatives comes from whistle blowers. Assange, Snowden, even that revolting piece of garbage who whacked of his penis and then called himself a woman, Manning.

I don't have to like any of them on a personal basis to be grateful that they blew that damn whistle. When it comes to putting our agents in danger, however, I have some major problems with that. I could see putting one of these pissants to death over that.

 

Good news for Assange and the rule of law. This is the second court to support Assange's legal position, but as before the US and Britain will ignore the rulings of courts they don't approve of.

Another demonstration of how deeply the criminal elements control those western governments.

 

Very much my personal view too. Whistle-blowers, irrespective of their motives (some being revenge and others for purely altruistic purpose) are essential if the public need to learn things that otherwise would remain in the dark.

 

The ruling of a court that has no means to enforce the ruling.
Nice victory for Assange.

 

Extreme times (extreme criminality of Gov't in this case) sometimes call for extreme measures. I understand the problem of "secret" documents being illegally transferred. If the transfer is to expose criminality within Gov't - as opposed to selling military secrets to the enemy for personal profit - I think we need to distinguish between the two and mitigate the sentence and criminality on that basis.

What is particularly disturbing is (and a further mitigating factor) is the persecution of people who have tried to expose Gov't criminality through legitimate channels.

If one can not go through legitimate channels to expose Gov't criminality - what other option is there ?

https://www.rt.com/usa/313662-whistleblowers-sue-doj-fbi-nsa/

Where is the prosecution of the individuals in the DOJ, FBI, NSA responsible for this ?

Then there is the use of the espionage act as a club to silence leakers and scare journalists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning

 

If the goal is to expose government corruption, I agree.

 

It puts the UK in the position of having to deal with an Ecuadorian security detail legally protecting him.

 

Well, it's not a very meaningful ruling since neither the UK nor the US are signatories, and therefore are not in its jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights

 

The ruling is an advisory opinion. Nothing more. Not legally binding.

 

Assange is not an American, so why shouldn't he have the right to print whatever is given to him no matter how detrimental it might be to the US? Had he been an American, and revealed secret documents, then that would have been a different story.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton who wanted him extradited to the US sent e-mails to Weiner's computor, knowing that Abedin's brother was a Saudi and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he and her mother who was a female member of the organization, stayed in Weiner's apartment. I consider that treason.

 

Sure, but Ecuador can say they're legally protecting him with security, putting the UK in the position of having to consider an international incident.

 

Ecuadorian laws are not valid outside of their embassy in the UK.

 

Stolen emails and communications from the US diplomatic servers are a property of the US. He can be easily charged with helping and protecting a thief and get a real prison sentence.

 

Personally I think Assange is a hero

 

It is for their personnel who work at the embassy.

 

So are Hillary's emails!

 

One wonders if Ecuador can make him a diplomat?

 

Ecuador is the perfect place for him. He will blend right in.

 

People like assange are a clear and present danger to the status quo of corruption and criminality seen in gov't. All genuine journalists are. Ask Glen Greenwald, or just learn about him.

The obama admin went to war against genuine journalists, which is perhaps why we have so few of them today. Just ask Risen. Obama went after more whistle blowers and journalists, using the charge of espionage, than all presidents added together up until he took office.

And yet the hillary dems accuse trump of trying to destroy the free press? ha ha. By his tweets? ha ha ha.

The US gov't of course wants assange's head on a platter. If secrecy is the beginning of tyranny, and generally it is, of course a gov't with a tyrant mentality must go after whistle blowers and real deal journalists. The obama admin sent a clear message to whistle blowers and real journalists. And that meme set up the foundation, and trump danced into it. Yet the dishonest have to ignore this fact, or their partisanship looks more along the lines of simple stupidity.

The rape charges, trumped up, failed and are now revealed for what they were. And assange being a prisoner where he is, cut off from the world, basically, is where our gov't wants him. The people within our gov't demand to operate in secrecy, and using the national security issue is in large part a con game, given just how much is secret and kept from the People these days. It is used to protect a more or less permanent ruling class. Used by other gov'ts like the old USSR and communist dictatorships the world over. Used to hide things that the People would not want done in their name, and to hide things that might be aganst the self interest of an institution like the CIA or NSA. Even when it trampled on our constitution. Of course you would want to hide such things. If you were a particular kind of gov't, but not a republic with a constitution.

 

Nice attempt to deflect.
Hillary is not subject of this conversation.

 

Good luck trying to pull that off.
It will result in arrests and deportations of Ecuadorians and Assange will be handed over for further processing.

 

That probably won’t work - diplomatic mission has an obligation to respect hosts laws, appointing Assange to diplomatic mission will be a clear indication that it’s done for the reasons of evation of the law. In that case Britain can ignore his diplomatic passport.

 

Like I said, they can create an international incident if they choose.

But that's the choice they have now.

 

Eh not really. They're not bound by that court's ruling, particularly on their own soil