Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder in last-ditch bid to avoid US extradition
Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder in last-ditch bid to avoid US extradition
The Wikileaks founder is trying to overturn an extradition order signed in 2022 by then UK home secretary Priti Patel.
You're viewing a single thread.
He ran out the clock for the rape charge against him in Sweden? What a scumbag.
Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
He exposed US war crimes and therefore they made him an enemy of the state and want to make an example out of him, to show others that when going against the US you have no rights - they can torture you, imprison you forever, etc.Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
Yes, that's a very popular conspiracy theory among his online supporters. It's founded in literally no material evidence of any kind, but that's never stopped a conspiracy theory from gaining traction.
Hey, quick question: to where is he is extradited?
*I've misread comrade, more paying attention to the tool part than fabricated part. Assange should get some hustice for his sa (iikely true) allegations, but prolly embassy imprisonment counts for his prison time for that
I think the more important question is why y’all think the charges are fabricated.
I will admit, I don’t know what to think, but that’s because the waters have become so muddy around those allegations. But I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that this was fabricated other than “it’s something that the government would do.”
It's important to remember that conspiratorial thinking is not limited by virtue of political ideology. Yes, the right has co-opted it in recent decades, but unfounded political paranoia and the mythologizing of deepstate cointelpro, as fundamental concepts, are on some level ideologically agnostic.
Why he's being extradited to the United States! Y'know, because of the ESPIONAGE charges brought against him in 2019, which were motivated by his receiving classified data from Chelsea Manning. You can say that the rape charges against him occurring around the same time are suspicious, and I would tacitly agree with you, but there's no evidence to suggest that they are related. And if the United States wants your ass in a blacksite, it doesn't need to fabricate sexual assault allegations to disappear you.
I do think his conduct can be classified as assault. I also think britain instituting 24/7 surveillance on ecuador embassy has got nothing to do with those charges, because no country in the world does this over sa charges. They (sweden case and usa one) are related in as much as he can't answer for charges in sweden, cause even he were charged and imprisoned there, there is still no guarantee he won't be extradited to usa.
The charges are a tool (maybe fabricated wrong word by the poster above), but they are still a tool to fuck him over.
USA can't disappear to black site famous people, they need their mask of free press
The charges are a tool (maybe fabricated wrong word by the poster above), but they are still a tool to fuck him over.
This is hardcore goalpost moving. The original wording to which I responded was literally saying the charges were fabricated. Saying "fabricated" is the "wrong word" is like someone saying "fake" is the wrong word to describe the moon landings. It suggests a kernel of truth to something that is completely unfounded, implying that it's simply overreaching by a matter of degree. So you're not saying Julian Assange didn't commit sexual assault. You're just saying it doesn't really matter if he did.
And literally no one is disagreeing that there's some realpolitk at play here, but saying an instance of sexual assault did not occur on the basis that its occurrence is politically inconvenient (and when would a sexual assault charge not be for someone like Assange?) is literal rape apologism.
I thought there was a lot of basis for this. Testimonials from the girls in question, where the escalation to "rape" from "broken condom" was after learning about there being another girl. The definition of what can end up being translated as "rape", is also not the same as one typically assumes when hearing that word in English. "Tampering with a condom, such that it leads to unprotected sex", can be considered "rape". Yet, the act can still be consentual. The other I believe accused him of taking advantage while asleep. Which would be fair to say, not lost in translation. But, she also didn't mind him staying at her place for more days.
It's been a while, so the details might be off here. Something along those lines at least. Also, naming the accused, was awfully strange, as it is just not done in Sweden for cases like this.
Probably enough information here:
In 2010, a Swedish woman initially referred to in the press as Miss A said that Assange had tampered with a condom during sex with her on a visit to Stockholm, essentially forcing her to have unprotected sex. She has since spoken publicly under her name, Anna Ardin. Another woman, referred to as Miss W, said that during the same visit, Assange had penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping.
What part of this does not seem like rape?
Not sure I understand what you are asking. Do you need help with reading? Not really interested in that. Maybe see if there is a class near you. Good luck.
I think you're the one who doesn't understand. I'm effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that's what you're doing. You're saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn't really "count" or that the people involved who believe they were raped were "asking for it."
I’m effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn’t really “count” or that the people involved who believe they were raped were “asking for it.”
Aha. I see. Then I wasn't wrong about suggesting improving reading skills. It might also instead be related to logic and inference. In either case, sounds like a you-problem. Good luck with that!
I'm not the one who posted an article they didn't even bother to read first.
Why would the spooks leave material evidence. The conspiracy doesn’t have to be very large to work.
I have to say that the suggestion that the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy is itself evidence of a conspiracy is some truly 10/10 pants on head conspiracy-brained logic. Very impressive.
Nah. People think that conspiracies need to be some large crazy hyper complex operation with many moving and confusing parts, but they don’t have to be. It’s far easier to keep things under wraps if your conspiracy is small — only involving a handful of people — and, you have the ability to throw people in jail for the rest of their lives if they leak it i.e. the US security apparatus. I could see a small team of spooks being given the free rein to concoct a honey trap for assange and making it stick, all without any real public physical evidence. It’s not the wildest thing versus all of the Q-anon nonsense.
username checks out
AFAIK the only reason one would rather fight extradition to the U.S. in the UK than fight extradition to the U.S. in Sweden is because one committed a heinous crime in Sweden.
Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
It wouldn't surprise me if the US did something like this, but considering the rampant history of powerful men in media/tech having a penchant of utilizing their power to sexually assault women, and the fact that there have been multiple reports from people working for wikileaks reporting him for sexual harassment..... I dont really doubt that he did sexually assault someone.
to face trial over leaking military secrets.
Yea it's definitely about the rape charges.
We hold people accountable for that stuff here in America, you think we'd just let rapists be in charge of every aspect of our society? Here? Never!!
Yeah, the statute of limitations ran out. Says a lot about our society if publishing publicly funded data has stricter penalties than raping 3 women. Either way the guy is a shit stain rapist and idgaf what happens to him. I'll save my sympathy for Snowden and Manning who haven't raped anyone.
I give a fuck about what happens to him because he's being punished as a journalist, not as a rapist.
If you think this will stop at journalists who happen to be rapists, you are sorely mistaken. At this point we're basically legalising treatment not that far from Kashoggi for journalists who handle military leaks, even the responsible, non-rapey ones.
if we punish rapists for rape, good luck finding any non rapist journalists!!!
Just fucking unhinged
Yes, that would be an unhinged take. Good thing that it's also nothing close to what I wrote. Try actually reading what you reply to and not strawmanning.
I literally said that they're not punishing him for rape. What they do to him now will be what they do to all journalists publishing things the military doesn't like.
I love the way you twist other peoples' words. Very masterful.
I honestly have no idea what kind of aneurysm it takes to draw that from what I wrote
He should go to prison if he's guilty of rape, he should definitely not go to prison for Wikileaks.
He has not been sentenced already, I hope you know that. I hope you also know the effort that he and his team made to have the trial been done where he was de-facto prisoner, but also the completely lack of flexibility from those who wanted him to simply step out of the embassy to arrest and extradite him.
The timeline and the events are very well narrated in Stefania Maurizi's book. It's almost gross how much the rape accusations have been used to try to get to him and how poorly both British and Swedish authorities behaved, probably obeying to the US (colonial power much).
sweden is well known for bowing to US requests. just look at the history of the unlawful attacks on the piratebay and the sham court they were passed through to get sentenced on no broken laws.
not to mention Sweden's constant bullshit in other data related sectors pushing american (hollywood) agendas into EU (and thankfully failing). the pay to take action against the will of the people IN A DEMOCRACY must be the recipe for immortality or some such because i don't see why they would otherwise be able to legally betray their countrymen.
Let's be even more specific. Sweden has a history of looking the other way on US extraordinary rendition:
The men were later subjected to torture.