This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/europe/julian-assange-embassy.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Ecuador Cuts Internet of Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ Founder Ecuador Cuts Internet of Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ Founder
(about 3 hours later)
LONDON — Ecuador announced on Tuesday that it had cut off Julian Assange’s access to the internet in his exile in the country’s embassy in London, making it clear that it feared the tiny country was being sucked into an effort to “interfere in electoral processes” in the United States by the activities of the founder of WikiLeaks. LONDON — Ecuador said Tuesday that it had cut off Julian Assange’s access to the internet in his exile in the country’s London embassy, making clear that it feared being sucked into an effort to “interfere in electoral processes” in the United States by the activities of the WikiLeaks founder.
The announcement came a day after WikiLeaks said that Mr. Assange’s connection to the internet had been severed shortly after the organization published speeches that Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs, the global investment firm. The transcripts, the latest in a series of disclosures, appear to have come from the hacked email account of John Podesta, the chairman of her campaign and a White House chief of staff when Mrs. Clinton’s husband served as president. Ecuador said that it was not evicting Mr. Assange from its embassy, where he sought asylum four years ago. It said that its “temporary restriction” of internet services to Mr. Assange “does not prevent the WikiLeaks organization from carrying out its journalistic activities.”
The statement clearly sought to separate Ecuador from the decision by WikiLeaks to publish Mr. Podesta’s emails and, before those, emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and other organizations. In recent weeks, Mr. Assange, once the hero of the American left for exposing classified State Department and Pentagon documents, has been hailed by Donald J. Trump and his advisers for disclosures from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which Mr. Trump has used almost daily to fuel his attacks on her. But it was clearly intended to keep the embassy from being the control center for that leaking operation. “The government of Ecuador respects the principle of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries,” it said in a statement, “and it does not interfere in the electoral processes in support of any candidate in particular.”
American intelligence agencies have said that the D.N.C. hack was the work of the Russian government, and had to be approved at the highest levels of the Kremlin. But it is unclear how the documents made it to WikiLeaks, which has never said where the emails came from, if it knew. The internet cutoff was the latest twist in the odd tale of Mr. Assange’s self-imposed exile, which began in 2012 when he sought refuge from a Swedish rape investigation that he said was a cover for an American effort to extradite him. Since then, his world has shrunk to a single apartment inside the small diplomatic compound in central London. He has communicated through the embassy’s internet connections, visitors and, presumably, cellphones that would give him another form of internet access.
Only hours before Ecuador’s announcement, WikiLeaks had charged that Secretary of State John Kerry had quietly urged the Ecuadorean government, in a meeting late last month, to stop Mr. Assange from publishing the emails or interfering in the election. The State Department issued a statement declaring that the reports were “simply untrue. Period.” Ecuador’s decision was the first sign that the government in Quito was beginning to wonder if its guest in London was overstaying his welcome.
Ecuador said that it was not evicting Mr. Assange from its embassy, where he sought asylum in 2012. It said that its “temporary restriction” of internet services to Mr. Assange “does not prevent the WikiLeaks organization from carrying out its journalistic activities.” It doubtless was considering the possibility that, should Hillary Clinton prevail in the United States election next month, it would have to explain its role as host to the man who, by remote control, appears to have coordinated the publication of emails purloined from people close to Mrs. Clinton, along with those of the Democratic National Committee and other organizations.
But it was clearly intended to keep the Ecuadorean Embassy from being the control center for that leaking operation. “The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries,” it said, “and it does not interfere in the electoral processes in support of any candidate in particular.” The announcement came a day after WikiLeaks said that Mr. Assange’s connection to the internet had been severed shortly after the organization published speeches that Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs, the global investment firm. The transcripts, the latest in a series of disclosures, appear to have come from the hacked email account of John D. Podesta, the chairman of her campaign and a White House chief of staff when Mrs. Clinton’s husband was president.
As a result, the statement continued, the government “has temporarily restricted access to part of its communications system in its embassy in the U.K.” The statement clearly sought to separate Ecuador from the decision by WikiLeaks to publish Mr. Podesta’s emails and, before that, those hacked from the national committee and elsewhere. In recent weeks, Mr. Assange, once the hero of the American left for exposing classified State Department and Pentagon documents, has been hailed by Donald J. Trump and his advisers for disclosures from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which Mr. Trump has used almost daily to fuel his attacks on her.
None of this action, experts inside and outside the United States government say, is likely to slow the flow of leaked emails. Those emails are routed through servers around the globe, and if the United States wanted to shut them down covertly, that presumably would have happened years ago. American intelligence agencies have said that the D.N.C. hack was the work of the Russian government and had to be approved at the highest levels of the Kremlin. But it is unclear how the documents made it to WikiLeaks, which has never said where the emails came from, if it knows.
In fact, American officials have said, turning off the flow of WikiLeaks data is a legally complicated issue, especially if American citizens or American-based firms are involved. The Obama administration, they say, does not want to be charged with suppressing unwelcome speech — in the manner of the Russians and the Chinese. Only hours before Ecuador’s announcement, WikiLeaks charged that Secretary of State John Kerry quietly urged the Ecuadorean government, in a meeting late last month, to stop Mr. Assange from publishing the emails or interfering in the election. The State Department issued a statement declaring that the reports were untrue.
Efforts to reach WikiLeaks on Tuesday were unsuccessful. A sometimes spokesman, Kristinn Hrafnsson, did not return messages, and a telephone message and email message to Sunshine Press, which represents Mr. Assange, were also unanswered. Ecuador’s action, experts inside and outside the United States government say, is not likely to slow the flow of leaked emails. Those emails are routed through servers around the globe, and if the United States wanted to shut them down covertly, that presumably would have happened years ago.
Mr. Assange has insisted that he does not know the source of the WikiLeaks material, though he has made no secret of his distaste for Mrs. Clinton. The United States government has said that much of the hacking was the work of Russian intelligence, and was part of a broad effort to influence the election. So far, the White House has not announced how it will respond, though several options have been discussed with President Obama, according to administration officials. In fact, American officials have said, turning off the flow of WikiLeaks data is a legally complicated issue, especially if American citizens or American-based firms are involved. The Obama administration, they say, does not want to be accused of suppressing unwelcome speech — in the manner of the Russians and the Chinese.
On Sunday, in a taped interview broadcast on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in what was either a warning or an effort at psychological warfare, said “we’re sending a message” to the Russians “at a time and place of our choosing” and that President Vladimir V. Putin will “know it” when the message arrives. That seemed to suggest some kind of covert action, perhaps a cyberstrike, in retaliation for what the American intelligence community has described as a broad and unprecedented effort by a foreign power to influence American voters. Efforts to reach WikiLeaks on Tuesday were unsuccessful. A sometimes spokesman, Kristinn Hrafnsson, did not return messages, and a telephone message and an email message to Sunshine Press, which represents Mr. Assange, were also unanswered.
Mr. Assange has insisted he does not know the source of the WikiLeaks material, though he has made no secret of his distaste for Mrs. Clinton. The United States government has said that much of the hacking was the work of Russian intelligence and was part of a broad effort to influence the election. So far, the White House has not announced how it will respond, though several options have been discussed with President Obama, according to administration officials.
On Sunday, in a taped interview broadcast on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in what was either a warning or an effort at psychological warfare, said that “we’re sending a message” to the Russians “at a time and place of our choosing” and that President Vladimir V. Putin will “know it” when the message arrives. That seemed to suggest some kind of covert action, perhaps a cyberstrike, in retaliation for what the American intelligence community has described as a broad and unprecedented effort by a foreign power to influence American voters.
It is possible that Ecuador feared that, because of its decision to give exile to Mr. Assange, it risked becoming a witting or unwitting participant in an effort at voter manipulation.It is possible that Ecuador feared that, because of its decision to give exile to Mr. Assange, it risked becoming a witting or unwitting participant in an effort at voter manipulation.
WikiLeaks provided no evidence to support its claim that Mr. Kerry had pressured Ecuadorean officials, during a private meeting in Colombia last month, to clamp down on Mr. Assange, and the State Department’s spokesman, John Kirby, immediately denied the accusation. “Reports that Secretary Kerry had conversations with Ecuadorean officials about this are simply untrue. Period,” he said.
The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, is a man of the left, and he recently told the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT that he would support Mrs. Clinton.The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, is a man of the left, and he recently told the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT that he would support Mrs. Clinton.
At the same time, he suggested in the RT interview that a victory by Mr. Trump, who has made no secret of his admiration for Mr. Putin, would be good for Latin America because it would, paradoxically, bolster left-wing parties. At the same time, he suggested in the interview that a victory by Mr. Trump, who has made no secret of his admiration for Mr. Putin, would be good for Latin America because it would, paradoxically, bolster leftist parties.
“I sincerely believe that it would be better for Latin America if Trump won,” Mr. Correa said. “When did progressive governments come to power in Latin America? During the Bush administration. His primitive policies were rejected so much that it caused reaction in Latin America. Trump would do the same.”“I sincerely believe that it would be better for Latin America if Trump won,” Mr. Correa said. “When did progressive governments come to power in Latin America? During the Bush administration. His primitive policies were rejected so much that it caused reaction in Latin America. Trump would do the same.”
Questions to the Ecuadorean Embassy on Tuesday were met with a reference to the mission’s website and a brief statement. Questions to the Ecuadorean Embassy on Tuesday were met with a reference to the embassy’s website and a brief statement.
“In view of recent speculations, the government of Ecuador reaffirms the validity of the asylum granted four years ago to Julian Assange,” the statement said. “We also ratify that the protection given by the Ecuadorean state will continue while the circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain.” “In view of recent speculations, the government of Ecuador reaffirms the validity of the asylum granted four years ago to Julian Assange,” the statement said.
Mr. Assange is the subject of an arrest warrant in Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual abuse dating to 2010, to decide whether or not to bring charges.Mr. Assange is the subject of an arrest warrant in Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual abuse dating to 2010, to decide whether or not to bring charges.
Mr. Assange, saying that he feared extradition to the United States on espionage charges stemming from the publication by WikiLeaks of secret documents given to the website by the former Army analyst Chelsea Manning, broke bail and took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in June 2012. He has been in the tiny embassy since.Mr. Assange, saying that he feared extradition to the United States on espionage charges stemming from the publication by WikiLeaks of secret documents given to the website by the former Army analyst Chelsea Manning, broke bail and took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in June 2012. He has been in the tiny embassy since.
Given the statute of limitations, the one allegation Mr. Assange still faces in Sweden is one of rape. He is wanted for questioning but has not been charged. Given the statute of limitations, the one allegation Mr. Assange still faces in Sweden is rape. He is wanted for questioning but has not been charged.
After long negotiations, he was scheduled to be questioned on Monday by Swedish prosecutors in the presence of an Ecuadorean prosecutor. But Ecuador, at Mr. Assange’s request, postponed that session until Nov. 14, after the American presidential election.
There is no public indictment in the United States of Mr. Assange; if Sweden chose not to press charges, he would presumably be free to leave the embassy.There is no public indictment in the United States of Mr. Assange; if Sweden chose not to press charges, he would presumably be free to leave the embassy.