13 ms·
Official statement: http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-caso-julian-assange-2/ http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-c
Official statement: http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-caso-julian-assange-2/ http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-ca...
Google Translate:
"Ecuador granted political asylum to Julian Assange in 2012 on the basis of their legitimate fears of political persecution because of his journalistic activities as editor of WikiLeaks.
"In recent weeks, WikiLeaks has published a large number of documents which have an impact on the election campaign in the United States. The decision to make public such information is the sole responsibility of the Wikileaks organization.
"The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, it does not interfere in electoral processes in progress or support a candidate in particular.
"In that sense, Ecuador, in exercise of its sovereign right, has temporarily restricted access to part of its communications system in its embassy in the UK.
"This temporary restriction does not prevent the WikiLeaks organization to carry out his journalistic activities.
"Ecuador, consistent with its tradition of defending human rights, especially with the victims of political persecution reaffirms granted asylum to Julian Assange and reiterates its intention to safeguard their lives and physical integrity until you can move to a safe place.
"Ecuador's foreign policy responds only to sovereign decisions and not yield to pressure from other states."
Native Spanish speaker here and, other than a few transparent gramatical errors, I can confirm this translation is correct.
I applaud the Ecuadorian government's attempt to at least distance themselves from this latest attempt by Wikileaks to influence our democratic process.
While in the past I viewed WL as a crucial part of openness and democracy, I'm very suspicious of their current sources, and their intentions. Not to mention Assange's personal interests (he expressed hatred towards Hillary - wonder what he thinks of Trump).
>"The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries".
A not so subtle hint to the fact that our country does not. For years we've meddled in the elections of countries around the world - directly and indirectly. We are still doing it in some parts, overtly supporting regimes that we like, and covertly derailing potential candidates who we assume will not play by our rules.
Your praise of their idealism is probably ill-founded, considering that the third presidential debate is tomorrow.
What about the NYTimes's attempt to influence our democratic process by publishing Trump's tax returns? "While in the past I viewed the media as a crucial part of openness and democracy, I'm very suspicious of their current sources, and their intentions. Not to mention the journalists' personal interests (many have expressed hatred towards Trump)."
(Not that I'm a Trump supporter -- I just wonder if you can distinguish the above from your views on Wikileaks. I suspect you may just feel the way you do given your thoughts on Trump.)
I applaud the Ecuadorian government's attempt to at least distance themselves from this latest attempt by Wikileaks to influence our democratic process.
How can you say that with a straight face? Legal SuperPACs, campaign contributions, lobbying groups, the home of commercial 'PR' (propaganda) and the world's most highly litigious society. You guys are the least democratic of any self-titled democracy today. Wikileaks publishes information that enables people to make informed decisions. This is the original purpose of democracy. Chalk and cheese?
I also wonder also how you can say "Wikileaks is meddling in US political process" while admitting the US has made a global habit of meddling in others' affairs (including: direct political coup, arming rebel groups, placing puppets in power, supplying torture equipment and training, etc.). It makes no sense.
Informed decisions? Dripping random out of context emails to try and generate a conspiracy or uninformed internet rage weeks before an election is not at all trying to inform the public. Assange lost his neutral credibility long ago. What happened to dumping all data right after it is received? That isn't happening this time because he doesn't like big government and thus doesn't like Clinton.
On the one hand you criticize Wikileaks for publishing all the data they have received, implying it is 'random' and 'out of context', and that they are acting out of a want to 'generate a conspiracy or uninformed internet rage'. This implies that you would prefer they edit and interpret sources before publication.
Unfortunately, on the other hand you want them to be 'neutral' and 'credible'.
I believe Wikileaks does a good job of maintaining the middle ground by providing both raw documents and context and analysis. Your suggestion that they are generating conspiracies does not stand up to analysis: by providing raw documents they do the opposite.
With regards to immediacy, Wikileaks has explained their processes in the past with regards to source validation. One of the most obvious attacks against the organization would be publishing false information through them to discredit them publicly. Therefore all information received must be carefully researched and validated, as well as anonymized, before publication.
They lost credibility again this time around with daily drips right before the election. Anyone not biased realizes it is obvious they are trying to hurt Clinton.
Dumping all they had at once when they received it would at least appear to be less of an agenda. They aren't providing "raw" documents since they are doing it now drip by drip, again trying to rile up uninformed folks right before the election.
>"How can you say that with a straight face? Legal SuperPACs, campaign contributions, lobbying groups, the home of commercial 'PR' (propaganda) and the world's most highly litigious society. You guys are the least democratic of any self-titled democracy today."
Oh really? Do you know the definition of a democracy? A democracy is simply a form of government that gives power to the people. It comes from Greek words "demos" meaning "the people" and "kratia" meaning power or authority. A democracy doesn't specify which people or even specifically what powers. It also doesn't say anything about about money or influence. Now is there too much money in US politics? Of course. Does extreme partisanship hinder progress? Absolutely. But none of these things mean that the US does not have a democracy. There might not always be a great choice of candidates but U.S citizens choose which least rotten of the bunch gets to represent them. No question about it. So yes that power is vested in the citizens. To state that the US is the least democratic of any democracy today is just absurd. So according to your statement the US lags behind Russia, Nigeria and Democratic Republic of Congo?
I think its odd that the OP simply saying he applauds the Ecuadorians efforts to distance themselves from Wikileaks elicited such a total condemnation from you.
> So yes that power is vested in the citizens
Not in the US, this power is granted to the Electoral College.
> To state that the US is the least democratic of any democracy today is just absurd
Of course if you compare to extreme examples like Russia, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the US is a heaven of democracy. Compared to most western countries, it falls behind.
Watching the events from Europe, the thing about USA and democracy is that it's blatantly obvious how bad things are, all while your media and governments are acting like everything is great and USA is the greatest country in the world. Nobody acts like things are great in Russia, Nigeria, or Congo.
USA is living a lie that hurts almost all its citizens on a daily basis, and there is nothing the people can do. USA might be a democracy but there is no power in the hands of the people anymore. The choice of continuing this corrupt, broken institution is what Hillary represents. Massive change that might break all kinds of stuff world wide because of the crazy that he is, is what Trump represents. I don't think anybody but the people benefitting directly want those two as candidates, but there is nothing anybody can do about it. The people of USA just have to take it, all while being lied to by the very people that should be working for them but obviously aren't: the media and the government.
Yeah, worst democracy in the world is probably on point, in my opinion.
> I also wonder also how you can say "Wikileaks is meddling in US political process" while admitting the US has made a global habit of meddling in others' affairs
How is that a question? It's true. Of course he can say that. Wikileaks is meddling in the US electoral process. That the US also does it in no way changes that simple fact. The fact that the US does something bad does not mean that some other organization suddenly didn't do the thing it did. That's what makes no sense.
I don't mean to excuse any of the terrible things the US has done, I'm just pointing out basic reality here.
And I applaud Ecuador for taking the high ground here. I hope the US learns something from that.
Banana citizens for a banana republic.
> While in the past I viewed WL as a crucial part of openness and democracy, I'm very suspicious of their current sources, and their intentions.
To be fair, the stated goal of WikiLeaks/Assange is to destroy the ability of governments to keep secrets by raising the cost of keeping secrets.
His original methods for accomplishing this goal was to enable leaks with the hope of creating an out of control spiral: disillusioned insider leaks -> government cracks down, spends more money, creates more onerous secrecy -> more insiders disillusioned, become leakers.
It kind of seems like this strategy failed -- there hasn't been a runaway spiral of leakers, and the ability of governments to keep secrets hasn't been eliminated.
Assuming the information Wikileaks is releasing is misinformation, whether or not Assange knows for sure, this isn't actually a bad strategy. Releasing plausible misinformation also raises the cost of keeping secrets. This attack only works because the internal communications are secret. If they were never secret, and anyone could peruse them, you couldn't release falsified versions. By keeping them secret, the organizations/governments have made themselves vulnerable to this attack, which raises the cost of keeping secrets.
It makes way more sense to think of WikiLeaks as Setec Astronomy, an anti-secrecy group, than a news organization seeking to inform the public.
> It comes from Greek words "demos" meaning "the people" and "kratia" meaning power or authority. A democracy doesn't specify which people
Of course it does -- the people. Demos, not anthropos.
> But none of these things mean that the US does not have a democracy.
And here too, the words "least democratic", rather than e.g. "not democratic at all, in any sense, ever", were likely chosen for a reason.
> I think its odd that the OP simply saying he applauds the Ecuadorians efforts to distance themselves from Wikileaks elicited such a total condemnation from you.
I consider it obedience signalling in the face of totalitarianism. I'm fine with "total condemnation" of that. I actually expect it from anyone I wouldn't pity and fight.
"Oh really? Do you know the definition of a democracy? A democracy is simply a form of government that gives power to the people."
The candidates are self-selected based on how much money they have plus connection with corrupt parties who operate on bribes from corporations, special interest groups, and rich people. The people get information on these candidates from highly-biased media that lie about other candidates to drum up ratings for advertising revenue while also run by people in capitalist class. Territories, phrasing of questions on ballet, and voter rights are used to filter a chunk of votes that may threaten status quo. They votes are often entered into machines that are easy to hack with consistent refusal to eliminate that risk. These votes determine which "electors," not Presidents, are decided. These electoral candidates were already chosen by prior, political parties. Depending on state law, those electors will then vote for candidate people voted for or vote against people's choice.
This total process is what many Americans call an election system where the "people" decide who runs the country. They're participating in a mass delusion. It's clear that the people have limited participation in the above process. The final choice isn't made by the people at all. Some democracy...
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/...
"And again: who decided your PM would be PM? Voters? Or was it an internal decision made by a party without voter input? How can you claim that the US is less democratic than that?"
It's not a perfect system, either, but the PM has to be among those elected to office - it's entirely possible (though rare) for a party to win the election, and their candidate for PM to lose their seat (and thus be ineligible).
It does also offer a semblance of "honesty" or vested interest. There's an accountability - if you as the PM are not capable of running a platform or country that makes other members of your party electable, they can and will remove you. So, at least in theory, there's a feeling of representative power. Most party-based removals from positions have come directly from the people, unhappy with performance, and then groups of politicians saying "Yeah, we're out of a job if we follow you/keep down this road".
It does also have Survivor-like elements, for better, and worse.
But the candidate for PM is known by the public, so in a sense it's de facto voted for.
Just like in the US, to rephrase your last: "Who decided your President would be President? Voters? Or was it an internal decision by an electoral college who in some cases is not obligated to respect the wishes of those they represent? How can you claim that to be democratic?"
As someone who has lived substantial periods in both Australia and the US, I have a decent perspective.