|
|
|
|
|
by chiaro
3085 days ago
|
|
The reasons why Ecuador took Assange in in the first place no longer make much sense. Under Correa, there were a number of tensions with the US that were looming large in Ecuadorian political landscape following a default in 08. By taking in Assange, Correa could both shore up anti-US sentiments at home that were mounting in criticism over an oil export deal, and get a bargaining chip to boot if he needed it. With Correa out of the picture and China stepping in and propping up exports, this makes little sense, and Assange's value as a bargaining chip is dubious to a Trump admin. Back when Wikileaks had a better reputation, it also helped affray Correa's attacks on free speech at home. Now that Assange's reputation is in the gutter, he's only a liability to Ecuador. |
|
It really amazes me how many people claim there are no conspiracies against Assange though - the number of things that went from 'conspiracy theory' to 'uncomfortable fact' because of Wikileaks is obviously no evidence of anything.
I remember what it was like watching discussion of the 5 Eyes before Wikileaks; people were written off as cranks for opinions that turned out to be very well rooted in fact. If Wikileaks' leadership gets shut down, we are going to lose a very comforting level of insight into how decisions are actually being made by people in power; and what the moral realities of government actually are.