Quote from: nullius on February 26, 2020, 07:03:12 PM

Although I myself do not agree with Assange about everything, I highly respect for his stand on principle. It is why he is so hated by the U.S. government: He cannot be bought, he cannot be terrorized, he cannot be persuaded. Not unless they can get him bodily under their control.

I feel the same. He's hugely important, both for what's he's done so far and as a figurehead, but - whether from arrogance or from the unremitting psychological pressure - he has made some stupid decisions. Interesting to compare with Snowden, for example.

He cannot be bought or terrorized, yes. 'Persuaded' is a sub-category of both, and a euphemism.

Quote from: nullius on February 26, 2020, 07:03:12 PM

the American so-called prosecution of Assange raises an issue of world-historical import that I have not seen many others discuss: By what right does the United States presume jurisdiction over Assange? He is a not an American citizen, and is thus not generally subject to the personal jurisdiction of American laws. He is not alleged to have committed any acts within American territorial jurisdiction. It is only yet another instance of America enforcing international reach for its diktat, on the basis of: We have the most guns, we have nukesand most of all, we have the global poison power of the dollar.

Bought or terrorized. Arguably 'bought' in the context of the US and any international resistance is a sub-category of terrorized. The threat can be implicit or explicit, but is there. Sanctions are only the start of it.
What does the US want? Wealth or power? Money is nothing but a manifestation of power... with this in mind, looking at a US reeling from the reputational damage caused by Assange and the Wikileaks exposures is very much like looking at a wounded predator. Is the US more annoyed by the actual damage or by the affront, by the fact that someone has the temerity to stand up to their global hegemony? If one man is willing to stand against them, then others will do so. Opposition is a threat and must be suppressed. I think the fact that the US is demanding extradition is quite revealing here; they are not calmly sitting in the background awaiting an impartial outcome, it's a show trial with the outcome predetermined due to US pressure. The US is flexing its muscles very publicly: no, we're not damaged, we're still strong, we're still in control. Bluster and posturing is often indicative of underlying insecurity. Assange has them rattled.

Quote from: nullius on February 26, 2020, 07:03:12 PM

Quoting from one of the links in OP:

Quote from: Vox (2019-04-12)

Assange impeded Morenos ability to seek technical assistance, international loans, and greater security and commercial cooperation with the United States, says Polga-Hecimovich. All of that was badly needed if Ecuador was going to rebound from Correas economic mess.

To remedy the problem, [Lenin] Moreno tacked more to the political center as a way to attract foreign investment. Those efforts were noticed by the United States.

Prior to your election, our nations had experienced 10 difficult years where our people always felt close but our governments drifted apart, Vice President Mike Pence said alongside Moreno in Quito, Ecuadors capital, last June. But over the past year, Mr. President, thanks to your leadership and the actions that youve taken have brought us closer together once again.

Likely helped, at least in part, by the thawing in relations with the US, Ecuador in March received a $4.2 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to help rebuild the nations economy.

Otherwise stated: The aptly-named Lenin Moreno sold his country, and sold Julian Assange. $$$

Prior to your election, our nations had experienced 10 difficult years where you people didn't do exactly what you were god-damned told, Vice President Mike Pence implied.
Assange was a fool for coming to the UK. I'm from the UK; we're a vassal state of the US. We are the ally who like a good little puppy eagerly does what we're told; we're the country who can be relied upon to send in a few token tanks so that US unilateral intervention in the middle-east can be painted with a veneer of multilateralism. The Ecuadorian embassy stuff was only ever a delay of the inevitable. Ecuador was bound to buckle eventually under US pressure; they aren't Cuba bolstered by the might of a Soviet Union.

I really hope he gets out of this, but I'm not optimistic. There is quite vocal opposition from a First Amendment perspective, but I can't see this having much sway over a president who sees laws as an irritating inconvenience.