Why Ecuador Is Sheltering Julian Assange
In 2011, U.S.-Ecuador relations hit a new low when Correa kicked out American ambassador Heather Hodges after reading a Wikileaks cable in which she had criticized Ecuadorean police corruption. (Correa is still bitter about her comments; he recently denounced Hodges for having an “imperialist attitude.”) This effectively torpedoed the Obama administration’s effort to improve bilateral ties. The administration had kept relatively quiet about Correa’s attacks on democracy and press freedom, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had met with the Ecuadorean president in Quito in 2010. Remarkably, the administration continued to treat Correa with kid gloves even after the expulsion of Hodges and the sentencing of Emilio Palacio.
The Obama strategy was based on a faulty premise. Relations between Washington and Quito did not sour because of incompetence, rigidness, or hostility from the Bush administration. They soured because Correa is a strongly anti-American leftist who thrives on confrontation and favors the ideological vision of Hugo Chávez. As former Clinton administration official Eric Farnsworth has written in Americas Quarterly, Correa and his fellow Chávez disciples “do not particularly want to have a partnership with the U.S. at this juncture.”
After witnessing the Assange ordeal, does anyone still doubt that?
(Click here for the Spanish-language version of this article.)
Already the Australian TV networks have pumped out a fictional bio on Assange, with A List Aussie actors. It didn’t take them long.
It’s a farce- the time-honoured art of giving oxygen to attention-seeking anarchists who find a way to embarrass the regimes who won’t harm them them, and ignore the real issues in the world because they’re too hard. Assange must be euphoric, because this is exactly what he was after.
What controversy did Assange uncover? That diplomats say crass things about each other? That the Arab world are petrified of Iran? Conservatives have been saying this for ages.
But here in the civilised world, when you hack into property that doesn’t belong to you, you answer to the law. Now that he is, he hides like a coward.
But cowards are treated as heroes nowadays.
Assange is a coward. You think he’d still be breathing if he leaked thousands of documents about Putin and Russia?
Patrick; The fact that the documents leaked by Asange and his ilk were no more than embarassing rather than destructive is not to Asange’s credit. He’s a vicious anti American child of anti American parents. If he could destroy the US, he would.
Correa and his fellow Chávez disciples “do not particularly want to have a partnership with the U.S. at this juncture.”
Oh well. Maybe we should accede to their wishes and say good-bye to Ecuador.
Countries that want no ties to the US should have their wishes granted. We can’t afford them, anyway.
I have no problem with that whatsoever. Tell their ambassadors to take a hike too.
Because they felt the Spanish words “tonto” and “pendejo” we’re widely enough used in the US?
Cheap date, all Assange has is the equivalence of house arrest for a while.
He will be there until Quito wants something or there is a regime change.
I don’t think I would like sitting where he is at right now.
Wow, how you have been suckered in. Assange is not even the issue gentlemen. He merely showcases open and translucent government or opaque, tyrannical governance. It is obvious that you all choose the latter. I choose the former. This is not about treason, it is about freedom to actually look at what your government is doing and then having the courage to share that data with others. To proverbially, shine the light into the den of cockroaches.
“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
I think our founding father, who maybe you also think to be a coward, said it best.
In no way would I consider a founding father to be a coward for wishing to keep government in check.
Surely the USA, like most western powers, has sedition laws for a reason.
Assange’s use of this batch of information might not have directly harmed the USA, but his methods do. A competent security organisation would have to assume that an anarchist like Assange would not hesitate to use security-sensitive information, if it would mean getting himself more notoriety.
Maybe that’s the issue, maybe it’s not. I’m not honestly sure. I do find it ironic that much of the information opened up by Assange actually underpins some conservative talking points, probably unwittingly so.
As long as colleges remain bastions of marxism and anti-colonialism lati america, and us, are screwed. It is just that simple.
After WWII the KGB saw latin america as fertile ground and got their hooks into the education system big time. Thus we see so guys like Berrea, Hugo Chavez, student leader Camilia Vallejo in Chile, Ortega in Nicarauga, Funes in El Salvador.
Berrea has the extra chip in his shoulder in that his dad was caught up
Sorry, the telephoe startled me and I did not complete my comment.
Berrea’s dad did 5 years in prison for cocaine smuggling. One more reason to hate the USA.
I still think (IMHO) that it’s as simple as “a leftist is a leftist is a leftist”. Asange hates the US, Chavez hates the US, so Correa, an anti American leftist in the usual mode, hates the USA and thus supports Asange. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.
With the exception of Texas’ post, (well said Texas), the posts here, and the article for that matter, show that most people have missed the point. Mr. Assange, whatever our personal opinion of him may be, is not important, nor are Correa’s reasons for sheltering him.
This entire sorry sideshow is about the U.S. Federal government attempting to exert extraterritorial power; to punish a foreigner who embarrassed U.S. bureaucrats, and send a warning to everyone else who might be in a position to do the same. Julian Assange is not a U.S. citizen, he was not on U.S. soil, and he did not solicit any criminal activity against the United States, but received the files after the fact. He is therefore not subject to U.S. espionage laws. The fact that U.S. officials have attempted this comically clumsy “extrajudicial rendition”, rather than following legal diplomatic channels with a legitimate warrant, proves my point.
If the attempt is successful, it will set a dangerous international precedent. If the U.S. can enforce domestic law upon foreign nationals on foreign soil, then so can any other government, and they will try (it has been attempted in the past, against American citizens). There is going to be blowback from this for innocent Americans.
You make a good point. As much as I dislike Assange, the Castros, Chavez, Correa et al., America’s assertion of universal jurisdiction is worrying, especially when it is being pursued in order to stifle our right to know what our own government is up to. If Sweden and the US would issue a simple guarantee that the extradition would be only for the purpose of trying the sexual assault claim, then perhaps the problem could be resolved. And if we could get our government to stop classifying so many of its quotidian operations as “top secret”, we will have made some real progress.
You are right. Mr. Assange is not in the least bit important. I couldn’t give a rat’s behind what happens to him. My comment was about Ecuador and its desire for a relationship with the US. They don’t want one. If that’s the case, I say let them go. Don’t chase after them. If people don’t want to have a constructive relationship with us then leave them be. Ignore them. We can’t afford to buy their friendship. I would ask only one thing in return: don’t let these same countries complain that we ignore them. They can’t have it both ways.
Sorry,I hadn’t meant to include your comment in there. The danger of making blanket statements, I suppose. However, Mr. Correa does, indeed, want a relationship with the United States. He is using the same extortion tactics to extract foreign aid that have worked so well for similar regimes. The U.S. is still Ecuador’s largest trading partner, and Ecuador has received $34,798,422 from various U.S. grant programs this year alone (http://justf.org/Country?country=Ecuador); foreign aid is not about aid, but buying influence, and he knows it. Even China is receiving aid payments from us, and we supposedly owe them how much? When you pay a criminal to behave himself, it should come as no surprise that he will try to raise the price. If those leaked cables hadn’t fallen into his lap, he’d have found some other point of leverage. I would agree that the question we should be asking is not why Mr. Correa may not want a relationship with us. Rather, we should be asking why we should need any relationship with him.
All we need to do is “Drill, Baby, Drill!” and bring down the price of energy: oil, natural gas, ng liquids. That will doom Chavez, Correa, Morales. Chavez has neglected Petroleos de Venezuela and turned it into a patronage mill. Morales has ended any new investment in Bolivia’s natural gas fields. Correa is the best off of the three, since Ecuador always has bananas, even as the oil runs out and the oil companies stop investing. But bring down the price of oil and all these clowns will be thrown out by their own people.
“…He is therefore not subject to U.S. espionage laws.”
LOL.
You’re living in a dream world, and wee lil’ Julian better pray that he doesn’t fall into our hands.
Indeed.
If I were to steal a Picasso in the US, export it to the UK and sell it to a buyer there would the buyer be clear of prosecution for his part in the theft of the artwork.
Of course he would not be off scott free. The reason being he knowingly took possesion of stolen goods.
If, on the other hand, said crook stole and fenced in the UK one of my rather pathetic water colors (which are arguably technically better than Picasso) he would have no expectation that the art was stolen.
Assange had every knowledge the data was stolen. In addition he was part of the conspriacy to steal said information. He solicicted it after all.
Given that the crime was committed under US law and he was a co-conspirator his physical location at the time of the crime is not relevant. Were than not the case someone outside the US could arrange a contract killing in the US and be clear of the law. By and large this is not the case when civilized countries are involved.
Assange it toast if we get our hands on him.
Mr. Harding, suppose that I, a U.S. citizen who had never been to Tibet or China, were the publisher of a large news outlet, and I was approached by a Tibetan citizen offering me videos of blatant human rights abuses committed by Chinese troops. Suppose I publish them, and the Chinese government then charges me with espionage. Would you agree to allow Chinese authorities to enter the United States, arrest me, and take me back to China for trial? By your logic, the managers of every major news outlet in the world, broadcast, web or print, and most of the smaller ones as well, should already be sitting in a U.S. prison, right next to most of the world’s heads of state.
To both you and Mr. Surls, you have no idea how much I wish all of you Liddy-esque “my country right or wrong” authoritarian types would simultaneously decide to go off somewhere, set up your own nation, and leave the rest of us in peace! Your kind are the primary factor that has made the path to a truly free human society so difficult, bloody, and largely unsuccessful.
Wikileaks did not steal copies of the “secret” documents. It published them. The persons pledged to protect the information are the criminals and those who vetted the trusted people are accomplices.
More to the point, does anyone really believe that Wikileaks released secrets unknown (i.e., actual secrets) to dedicated foreign intelligence agencies that expend massive resources to penetrate our governments’ communications channels? So our governments’ objects to the our public knows what foreign governments already know.
Wikileaks is a problem for our governments but because it shows in high relief (a) the lack of serious concern they have for the most basic practices of communications security, and (b) what an embarrassment our public officials truly are.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Julian Assange for opening our eyes to their manifest incompetence and pettiness.
I am just returning from Quito today. I have it on firsthand authority that the US military is still providing small arms training to the Ecuadorean military.
Interesting.
“…suppose that I, a U.S. citizen who had never been to Tibet or China, were the publisher of a large news outlet, and I was approached by a Tibetan citizen offering me videos of blatant human rights abuses committed by Chinese troops. Suppose I publish them, and the Chinese government then charges me with espionage. Would you agree to allow Chinese authorities to enter the United States, arrest me, and take me back to China for trial?”
If you were running an independent spy ring and participating in stealing government secrets from the PRC for your own purposes, I wouldn’t lift a finger to help you, and I might (if I was in a position of authority) very well hand you over to the communists to avoid trouble.
As for the real world and Julian Assange, I’d try to kill him any way I could, or capture him, and put him on trial, if that failed. Same for any one else connected with Wikileaks. We’re fighting a war. They’re spies, they’re helping the enemy, and should be treated accordingly. I’d take due care not to cause an international incident, but I’d get the little cockroaches one way or the other, if not today, then tomorrow.
As for Bradley Manning. He’s a spy, and also and an out and out traitor, who should be tried, convicted and executed for treason. That’s assuming that what’s being said about him is true, of course.
Lastly, I would warn the government of Ecuador (on the q.t.) that any attempt to shield Assange, or help Wikileaks in any way would be considered an act of war against the United States, and that said acts of war would be met by American air strikes.
As for what people like quiet_forest think…I couldn’t care less.
Thank you for making my point for me. So, which DHS department do you currently work for? I’m sure you’ll be a fine recruit for Obama’s civilian security force. You needn’t bother answering. I’m sure if you do, it will be just as disturbing as the sociopathic comment you just made. You’ve already proven yourself impervious to reason, so I will no longer bother to answer. I will pray for you, however.
It’s disheartening to see so many good little fascists here hating on Assange for embarrassing federal bureaucrats.
Doubly so considering that SCOTUS ruled forty plus years ago that the WA Post had committed no crime for doing the exact thing that Wikileaks did.
“Doubly so considering that SCOTUS ruled forty plus years ago that the WA Post had committed no crime for doing the exact thing that Wikileaks did.”
No, the SCOTUS ruled no such thing.
What they did rule in New York Times Co. v. United States was a total joke (like most SCOTUS rulings), but it had nothing to do with a criminal accusation, and has no bearing on what’s going on today.