7 ms·

So he’s suing the government of Ecuador because of “new rules, which require him to pay for medical bills, phone calls and clean up after his pet cat”. I don’t

So he’s suing the government of Ecuador because of “new rules, which require him to pay for medical bills, phone calls and clean up after his pet cat”. I don’t know, those rules sound pretty reasonable to me. Why wasn’t he cleaning up after his pet cat in the first place? And that’s the evidence that they are trying to kick him out? Suing to challenge these rules certainly won’t help with the government’s good will.

icebraining 8y ago
Did you read the actual memo? Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from doing any activities that might be considered political. To me, reading the various restrictions, it seems pretty obvious that they're designed to give them as excuse to kick him out, and the lawsuit is just a way to buy some time.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"Did you read the actual memo?" There is no link to the "memo" in the Reuters article. Maybe it was removed? Might you have the link?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    No, I used a search engine. It's not hard to find: http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/protocolo-assange-final.pdf http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...
- SEJeff 8y ago
  Love him or hate him, they're not required to keep him in their embassy forever, or pay his bills and clean up after him. Regardless of what he did, in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    >> in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter. No and no. This is the civilian world. An embassy is an outpost of a civilian government. Despite all the spycraft associated with them, they are not military outposts and government cannot conduct military operations from them. They are armed only enough to defend themselves. He is also definitely not a squatter. He was invited in. Squatters by definition enter without permission.
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      Squatters often enter with permission, but don't leave.
      - sandworm101 8y ago
        There is a legal distinction that really matters on a daily basis. A renter who fails to pay rent isn't a squatter. A delinquent renter cannot be instantly arrested for trespass. Someone who enters without permission can be instantly arrested without much in the way of process (trespasser, robbers, drunk people etc). Someone who had previous permission can only be evicted after a lengthy process. Where "adverse possession" aka squatter's rights exists, one much stay without the permission of the owner. A potential adverse possession can be avoided by the landowner giving permission. That stops any running clocks as the possession is no longer "adverse" to the rights of the owner.
  - gufle 8y ago
    Regardless of what she did, in the civilian world, Anne Frank would be similar to a squatter.
    - butterfi 8y ago
      Poor analogy.
      - vntok 8y ago
        > Anne Frank would be a squatter. That's absolute bullshit. Anne Frank was hidden inside an annex of her father's company, BY her father Otto Heinrich Frank, a former German officer decorated during the 1st World War. HE told her how he planned to hide her. Nothing to do with squatting, and frankly (no pun intended) you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.
        gufle 8y ago
        Anne Frank and her family lived in a building where her father worked. Not one he owned. They were hidden there by her father's colleagues. It's as much squatting as Assange's case. Not that it matters, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of trying to make such ridiculous analogies and characterizing people based on that. Also, I don't play shame tag bud.
      - gufle 8y ago
        Nah. (Its no worse than the Assange one.)
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Regardless of what he did, in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter. No, he's more like a couchsurfer that wants the legal tenant on whose couch he is staying to provide cleaning services, indefinite rent-free residency, and to allow him to do things that violate the tenant's lease. But not a squatter, because he has permission, for now.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  The memo isn't linked in the article.
- tyingq 8y ago
  Google translate gives me this: "24. Mr. Julian Assange is reminded that, while the Republic of Ecuador recognized as an asylee, shall, when exercising his right of communication and of freedom of expression from the Embassy of Ecuador in London, abide by scrupulously the conventional and customary norms of asylum diplomatic, among others, especially, the prohibition to carry out activities that could be considered as policies and interference in internal affairs from other States, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other State, whatever form is used to execute said activities" Original text, in Spanish: https://archive.org/stream/AssangeEmbassyProtocols/Assange%20Embassy%20Protocols_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/AssangeEmbassyProtocols/Assange%2...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from doing any activities that might be considered political. No, he can participate in Ecuadorian politics all he wants, it merely prohibits him from interfering in other State’s politics; such interference violates international law when conducted from a diplomatic outpost, and Ecuador is obliged by international law to prevent it.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Umm, excuse me, but your post here sounds political. By doing so, you are interfering in other State's politics. Perhaps you should be arrested for this political post.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Only if dragonwriter posted it from within another country's embassy. I'm going to make a guess that dragonwriter didn't do that. More: Assange isn't going to be arrested (by Ecuador). He's going to be kicked out of the embassy if he keeps being politically active. Now it's Assange's choice: Leave the embassy in order to keep being politically active, or stay there and shut up.
    - ascorbic 8y ago
      That makes total sense, assuming dragonwriter is posting it from a diplomatic post. If not, then I'm not sure what your point is.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech? Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech? This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important to protect than political speech. It is quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.

icebraining 8y ago

Did you read the actual memo? Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from doing any activities that might be considered political. To me, reading the various restrictions, it seems pretty obvious that they're designed to give them as excuse to kick him out, and the lawsuit is just a way to buy some time.

bogomipz 8y ago
>"Did you read the actual memo?" There is no link to the "memo" in the Reuters article. Maybe it was removed? Might you have the link?
- icebraining 8y ago
  No, I used a search engine. It's not hard to find: http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/protocolo-assange-final.pdf http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...
SEJeff 8y ago
Love him or hate him, they're not required to keep him in their embassy forever, or pay his bills and clean up after him. Regardless of what he did, in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter. No and no. This is the civilian world. An embassy is an outpost of a civilian government. Despite all the spycraft associated with them, they are not military outposts and government cannot conduct military operations from them. They are armed only enough to defend themselves. He is also definitely not a squatter. He was invited in. Squatters by definition enter without permission.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    Squatters often enter with permission, but don't leave.
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      There is a legal distinction that really matters on a daily basis. A renter who fails to pay rent isn't a squatter. A delinquent renter cannot be instantly arrested for trespass. Someone who enters without permission can be instantly arrested without much in the way of process (trespasser, robbers, drunk people etc). Someone who had previous permission can only be evicted after a lengthy process. Where "adverse possession" aka squatter's rights exists, one much stay without the permission of the owner. A potential adverse possession can be avoided by the landowner giving permission. That stops any running clocks as the possession is no longer "adverse" to the rights of the owner.
- gufle 8y ago
  Regardless of what she did, in the civilian world, Anne Frank would be similar to a squatter.
  - butterfi 8y ago
    Poor analogy.
    - vntok 8y ago
      > Anne Frank would be a squatter. That's absolute bullshit. Anne Frank was hidden inside an annex of her father's company, BY her father Otto Heinrich Frank, a former German officer decorated during the 1st World War. HE told her how he planned to hide her. Nothing to do with squatting, and frankly (no pun intended) you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.
      - gufle 8y ago
        Anne Frank and her family lived in a building where her father worked. Not one he owned. They were hidden there by her father's colleagues. It's as much squatting as Assange's case. Not that it matters, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of trying to make such ridiculous analogies and characterizing people based on that. Also, I don't play shame tag bud.
    - gufle 8y ago
      Nah. (Its no worse than the Assange one.)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Regardless of what he did, in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter. No, he's more like a couchsurfer that wants the legal tenant on whose couch he is staying to provide cleaning services, indefinite rent-free residency, and to allow him to do things that violate the tenant's lease. But not a squatter, because he has permission, for now.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
The memo isn't linked in the article.
tyingq 8y ago
Google translate gives me this: "24. Mr. Julian Assange is reminded that, while the Republic of Ecuador recognized as an asylee, shall, when exercising his right of communication and of freedom of expression from the Embassy of Ecuador in London, abide by scrupulously the conventional and customary norms of asylum diplomatic, among others, especially, the prohibition to carry out activities that could be considered as policies and interference in internal affairs from other States, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other State, whatever form is used to execute said activities" Original text, in Spanish: https://archive.org/stream/AssangeEmbassyProtocols/Assange%20Embassy%20Protocols_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/AssangeEmbassyProtocols/Assange%2...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from doing any activities that might be considered political. No, he can participate in Ecuadorian politics all he wants, it merely prohibits him from interfering in other State’s politics; such interference violates international law when conducted from a diplomatic outpost, and Ecuador is obliged by international law to prevent it.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Umm, excuse me, but your post here sounds political. By doing so, you are interfering in other State's politics. Perhaps you should be arrested for this political post.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Only if dragonwriter posted it from within another country's embassy. I'm going to make a guess that dragonwriter didn't do that. More: Assange isn't going to be arrested (by Ecuador). He's going to be kicked out of the embassy if he keeps being politically active. Now it's Assange's choice: Leave the embassy in order to keep being politically active, or stay there and shut up.
  - ascorbic 8y ago
    That makes total sense, assuming dragonwriter is posting it from a diplomatic post. If not, then I'm not sure what your point is.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech? Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech? This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important to protect than political speech. It is quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.