Remember the US did not seek extradition for the 2013 leaks he coursed Chelsey manning into getting him, it wasn’t until he conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election that the US decided to seek extradition.
Page 44 of the Muller Report In order to expand its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to WikiLeaks. GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks’s private communication system.
www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/…/index.html Despite being confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage to Ecuador, Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical moments, frequently for hours at a time. He also acquired powerful new computing and network hardware to facilitate data transfers just weeks before WikiLeaks received hacked materials from Russian operatives.
Right, I’m sure the US had nothing to do with the charges that Sweden was trying to file. I’m sure that Ecuador let him hide in the embassy since 2012 for no good reason
Your conspiracy falls apart when you look at Chelsea Manning, she was sentenced to 35 years, got the government to pay for her transition, her sentence was commuted after 7 years, and she went on to cuckole Elon Musk.
Assange raped two women, used his propaganda outlet to push conspiracy theories and hid in the only embassy that would take him. Later he was kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy for using it to collude with Russia to influence the US election.
Your conspiracy falls apart when you look at Chelsea Manning, she was sentenced to 35 years, got the government to pay for her transition, her sentence was commuted after 7 years, and she went on to cuckole Elon Musk.
First of all, whataboutism and ad hominem (specifically about ‘privilege’), second, 7 years is a lot, if you can compare it to Jeffery Epstein’s sentence deal of 1.5 years (18 months)…
Assange raped two women, used his propaganda outlet to push conspiracy theories and hid in the only embassy that would take him. Later he was kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy for using it to collude with Russia to influence the US election.
Honestly, outside of politics, Assange should’ve prbly been held for trial for that, in Sweden, NOT in America. Also, when did he decide to push conspiracy theories (I never heard him support Qanon)? And well, I kinda think the Russia collusion here is more of a post-hoc justification for the U.S to get him so…
Well, this is not the accusation that the US is interested in at the moment. You could say much worse things about trump, and he is running for presidency. So there is that.
No. The point is, Assange should not get persecuted for his actions as a journalist. You are saying he should because of rape allegations (why that matters in this case is your argument not mine). Yet, the president candidate of the same country was found guilty of rape and is not persecuted.
“On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that the statute of limitations had expired for three of the allegations against Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. The investigation into the rape allegation was also dropped by Swedish authorities on 19 May 2017 because of Assange’s asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.[5][6] Assange said in these proceedings that he feared he would ultimately be extradited to the United States if he were sent to Sweden.
In May 2019, the Swedish Prosecution Authority reopened the investigation against Assange. The prosecutors expressed the intent to extradite Assange from the United Kingdom after he served his 50-week prison sentence for skipping bail.[7] In June 2019, the Uppsala District Court denied a request to detain Assange, thereby preventing his extradition to Sweden.
As of 19 November 2019 the prosecution dropped the case because “the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed” although they were confident in the complainant.[8]”
It was a rhetorical question, but yes, April 12: dragged out of embassy, November 19: Sweden drops charges. And soon thereafter America suddenly says they would like to extradite him to the US even though they denied this for years while Assange was in the embassy.
I’d say since the first full year of him living in an embassy ended, we can’t be justified to call him a scumbag.
Other than that - his sense of humor in the NetBSD fortune files and other traces in the Internet maybe sucks, but he’s a better role model than Snowden (whose life is somehow much easier, which is suspicious really).
Because unlike Snowden you can somewhat trace him before the big story which made him known, and that trace is connected with, as I said, NetBSD and cypherpunk culture, the good stuff.
While Snowden is some messiah which came out of nowhere and is still free and well. It’s just suspicious for me.
Unfortunately the whole “isn’t a citizen” thing might work against him. IIRC courts have ruled the Bill of Rights applies to citizens, including freedom of the press.
Oh yeah, US courts justifying their continuous rights abuses of foreign detainees is absurd and should be legitimized by no international judgements.
One more reason to not extradite Assange. Let him sit trial for everything else he’s allegedly done in countries with humane criminal justice systems, but do not subject him to either Manning’s, or worse, as you say, non-citizen’s torture in places like Guantanamo Bay.
His efforts for freedom of information that align with his political motives. He lost all credibility when it became clear he was picking and choosing. He certainly chooses interesting times to show restraint. And of course he swears the kremlin didn’t give wikileaks the DNC’s emails. And Trump totally didn’t offer him a pardon to say Russia had nothing to do with it.
I am pro transparency, and there was a time when I respected Assange and Wikileaks. But it has become clear he does what is good for him and his politics. That is not the job of a transparency-centric site. You publish everything after it’s vetted. Even if it’s bad for “your team.”
@BolexForSoup just to be clear are you saying that journalists with a political or ideological slant should not be afforded the same protections as other journalists?
No, I believe it’s pretty clear they’re saying journalists who claim total transparency should have total transparency, not obscure some things because they want to. If you claim to want to protect children and then do a bunch of things to hurt children, you lose your standing as a protector of children. The same here. If you claim total transparency and then hide certain things you lose the claim of total transparency.
So I literally can’t talk about anything other than exactly the topic of this article? I am discussing the core thing he did to even be noticed. I am also responding directly to someone painting him as a morally righteous prisoner of conscience.
moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism.
I think the question is, when does the line between journalist and espionage intersect?
Does his state sponsored participation in election interference count as journalism? Did his misinformation campaign during the Catalan independence movement count as journalism? How about the attempt to bribe the Trump administration for the ambassador seat to Australia?
There’s a reason every serious journalist that Assange utilized to launch wikileaks has not only abandoned the project, but has accused Assange of financial fraud, miss handling information, and endangering their sources.
I don’t think Julian Assange is a journalist, I think he just likes being famous, and at one point journalism was a way to do that. I don’t think he should be in jail for the rest of his life, but I also don’t think he deserves Carte Blanche for everything he’s done based on his prior “journalistic integrity”.
There’s a reason every serious journalist that Assange utilized to launch wikileaks has not only abandoned the project, but has accused Assange of financial fraud, miss handling information, and endangering their sources.
Yeah, because they’d be hunted down by the US government right alongside Assange.
Most of the early members of wikileaks left before the first leaks pertaining to the US. Wikileaks original focus was to expose authoritarian governments in the Middle East, ex Soviet block, and primarily China’s actions in Tibet. John Young, one of the founders actually left the group after accusing Assange of being a CIA plant after Assange wanted to do a multimillion fund raising drive.
The largest group to leave was before the 2010 Iraq leak, when the actual journalist at wikileaks warned Assange that the batches had not been properly redacted, and he published them anyway.
Fear for their source’s safety actually led wikileak’s security team to steal data from wikileaks and keep the data encrypted until Assange agreed to improve opsec. Assange ended up kicking them off the team, and they ended up having to delete the data.
I would really suggest reading what his early colleagues thought about his work, it really gives a lot of perspective about how poorly wikileaks was actually run, and how shady of a character Assange is.
Again, I’m not condoning life in prison. I just don’t think he’s the titan of ethics and moral integrity that people make him out to be. And he shouldn’t be immune to prosecution for the unethical and illegal activities he committed outside the scope of legitimate journalism.
Meaning random Americans reading the commentary are going to be influenced to support his prosecution, rather than resist it. The American public has been carefully massaged for years to make this possible without mass unrest.
Lol, I think you like to make assumptions that fulfill your biases. My response was simply an example of how his public image and his personal actions differ. Even if the release was sloppy and he may have potentially compromised his sources, it was still an act of journalism.
The acts that I believe to be outside the credible scope of journalism consist of misinformation campaigns in Spain, the election interference, and the bribe offered to the trump administration for the ambassador seat to Australia.
I can’t really see how any of those actions are defensible for someone who considers themselves a journalist.
I wouldn’t say we were off topic, I was just specifically responding to “His moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism.”
The State is for sure requesting extradition in response to his prior journalistic work (and I do consider the 2010 leak as journalism), and that is of course wrong. However, I think it’s still important to point out that he did engage in subversive actions that cannot be excused as journalism.
Doing so set a dangerous precedent for future journalist who look up to the man. The ironic thing is he wouldn’t likely be in the situation he is in now if he has stuck to his stated principles, or listened to his colleagues. He would still be hounded by the US gov, but he would have still had countries that would safeguard him. Wikileaks would still be operational, and most importantly less sources would have faced federal prosecution.
I honestly don’t see how it helps anyone but the US prosecution to point out that he was a subversive. Whether he’s good or bad is irrelevant to whether the journalism he did should be made illegal.
And being subversive shouldn’t be a crime either tbh
helps anyone but the US prosecution to point out that he was a subversive
Lol, I doubt my opinions on Lemmy will be influencing any federal prosecutors. I already stated that it’s important for future generations to learn from both the success and mistakes of Assange. I don’t really see how white washing his past really helps anyone.
Whether he’s good or bad is irrelevant to whether the journalism he did should be made illegal.
Again, with the strawman? I’ve explicitly stated I don’t agree with the prosecution of any legitimate journalistic endeavor. My point was that if there was any justification for prosecution it would be for his activities that do not fit within the scope of journalism. Since they are not charging him based on those actions, there is no legitimate justification for his current prosecution.
I dont really see the point in trying to deify a person as some sinless martyr. People are perfectly capable of doing both good and bad things, and I don’t think we should shy from that fact. Your beliefs are being limited to a false dichotomy of Saint or sinner, when reality is rarely that simple.
Lol, I doubt my opinions on Lemmy will be influencing any federal prosecutors.
They influence the public, and the public can exert pressure on the government. Why do you think US propaganda has been so insistent that Assange is a Putin asset and enemy of democracy and danger to Americans? These propaganda points are coming straight from the top and you’re parroting them for no reason.
There’s zero benefit in participating in the smear campaign against Assange. This helps no one but the US prosecution. That doesn’t mean we deify him, that just means we don’t force threads to go off topic just to air grievances against him. You brought this up for no reason and forced this whole derail despite all my attempts to keep it on topic.
Sus.
I dont really see the point in trying to deify a person as some sinless martyr.
Again, with the strawman?
My point was that if there was any justification for prosecution it would be for his activities that do not fit within the scope of journalism.
And my point is that he is only being prosecuted for journalism. All these other “”“concerns”“” you have are literally irrelevant and off topic, and they’re being pushed by the US to make people less sympathetic to Assange so that they allow him to be prosecuted.
Maybe you don’t agree with his prosecution, but you’re pushing talking points that make it easier. This helps no one but the prosecution.
They influence the public, and the public can exert pressure on the government.
Maybe if we lived in a functional democracy? Right now it’s pretty clear that public pressure has little to no effect on those with their hands on the reigns.
Why do you think US propaganda has been so insistent that Assange is a Putin asset and enemy of democracy and danger to Americans?
Again, they wouldn’t have that ammunition if Assange was the boy scout of truth you attempt to make him out to be. His involvement with Russia and their interference election campaign, and his workings with Trump Jr gave fuel to that particular fire.
These propaganda points are coming straight from the top and you’re parroting them for no reason.
Lol, yes me saying that his leaks about the Iraq and afghan war were legitimate acts of journalism that need to be protected, is exactly what Washington is parroting… This is the false dichotomy I was talking about.
There’s zero benefit in participating in the smear campaign against Assange
Ahh, so I’m not allowed to have any nuances opinions about an individual? There is no benefit in providing context? Sounds like you care more about your biases than the truth, which is ironic considering that the whole point of wikileaks was to bring transparency to complex issues.
This helps no one but the US prosecution. That doesn’t mean we deify him, that just means we don’t force threads to go off topic just to air grievances against him.
Lol, I think you have an overvalued sense of self importance . Nothing we do or say is going to influence a federal prosecutor, to think so is incredibly narcissistic.
And the whole point of engaging in discourse is to provide context and gain perspective that you haven’t accounted for. If your only rebuttal to criticism or context is telling someone to shut up, I don’t think you really have a complete grasp of your own beliefs.
You brought this up for no reason and forced this whole derail despite all my attempts to keep it on topic
You don’t get to dictate what is and what isn’t on topic. If I was talking about jelly beans, yeah I’d be off topic. Me discussing the surrounding context of assanges arrest, and why he’s lost public support over the years is not rejecting the topic at hand.
Again, with the strawman?
It’s not a straw man if that is the thing you are expressly trying to prevent. You have been aggressively campaigning to stop any criticism of a person, even if they are valid.
And my point is that he is only being prosecuted for journalism. All these other “”“concerns”“” you have are literally irrelevant and off topic
And my point is that the reason they felt comfortable with actually pulling the trigger on his prosecution is directly related to the actions you say are off topic. If he has stuck with his principals and actually stuck to the journalism he’s always claimed to value, he’d still have friends in high places who would stick their necks out to protect him.
But in the last 5-10 years he’s consistently burned every bridge offered to him. Just look at his experience in the embassy. The Ecuadorian government spent real political capital and money safeguarding him, and how does he repay them? By being a complete ass to people and eventually spying on them.
My point is that it is irresponsible to portray his current situation as a scenario where his prior actions were inconsequential to his current predicament. That it was inevitable that the government would eventually imprison him no matter what. That portrays the government as some all powerful all knowing organization that operates outside the rules of power. Taking away Assanges responsibility/agency in his mess will just lead others to believe that no matter what you do you are never outside the reach of the US gov, and that is just untrue.
Maybe you don’t agree with his prosecution, but you’re pushing talking points that make it easier. This helps no one but the prosecution.
So now it’s my fault that he abandoned his journalistic integrity, or should we just not be talking about it? This is the inherent flaw with not being transparent. The dark spot in the room no one is talking about injects a vacuum into the discourse that can be filled with anything. In my opinion, when we shine a light on to the dark it robs the vacuum reactionaries utilize to control the discourse.
Truth is our only weapon, unlike the government we don’t have the ability to control the narrative with an infrastructure of colluding media. Our only tool is to point out the internal contradictions that they utilize to keep people in the dark. However, this weapon can be easily countered if they can point out a wisp of hypocrisy.
You being so insistent on preserving the vacuum of opaqueness for reactionaries to rally around is in my eyes, very “sus” as you say.
I feel like you’re not allowing two statements to be true.
Assange is being doggedly pursued by the US for leaking state secrets. No I do not think he deserves to be punished for information he released like with Afghanistan. I think we are better for it and clearly this is the US making an example of him. Obviously we all knew he would be pursued, but again, I think that was the morally right thing to do, and I believe in protecting whistleblowers
I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did. He isn’t. He had my support when he was standing for transparency, and he lost it when it became clear he saw leaks as a tool for his political preferences and friends.
We can hold these two ideas at the same time.
As for the sexual assault allegations against him, I have no clue what to think the waters are too muddy there. So I just don’t engage that generally.
“A bit of a scumbag” dilutes the fact that he failed at the very mission people praise him for. I am happy to admit that I am was somewhat off in my initial reading of their comment. I do not want to get bogged down in that.
The point is that Assange was a useful tool for a certain brand of politics and certain parties. We all need to recognize that. “He’s a bit of a scum bag” isn’t even close to the reality of how nefarious his actions were.
Unfortunately, what we actually learned is that WikiLeaks existed for him to help those he politically agrees with. There is a reason every self-respecting journalist who worked with WikiLeaks has since walked away and no, it is not because of the US government going after him. It’s because WikiLeaks wasn’t engaging in transparency and quality journalism.
Interesting assertion. Also irrelevant, because journalism doesn’t have to be neutral. Plenty of journalists have an agenda, in fact I’d argue most of them do and the idea of impartial journalism is something some journalists made up to promote their own agendas.
I didn’t say journalists had to be neutral. I never used the word neutral. Objectivity is a myth and impossible to obtain.
I’m saying these journalists didn’t want to work for a flagrantly partisan organization
that lied about its commitment to transparency.
If you want to be a mouthpiece for Putin and conservative talking points, then you need to not pretend you’re evenhanded and egalitarian with your leaks and publication.
The only people who don’t pretend to be evenhanded and egalitarian are, like, indie communist zines. This is just a problem with the industry as a whole - everyone pretends to be neutral, even though literally no one is. That’s not something unique to Assange, so kinda irrelevant imo
So you don’t agree that the entire (claimed) raison d’être of wikileaks was that they were a haven for whistleblowers to bring their information to be vetted by quality journalists and released to the broader public, regardless of the political leanings of the information or people involved?
I agree with you that we should not be thrusting that mandate on outlets. But that’s not what happened. WikiLeaks claimed to be a beacon of transparency. That is a bar they set for themselves. I don’t care if they are “biased“ or whatever, I care that their job is to release information (their own mandate) and then they withhold it when it isn’t convenient for Assange’s politics.
Again, all media outlets claim to be beacons of transparency. They all set this bar for themselves. Everyone claims they are fair and balanced. That’s just the industry and everyone in it.
Why, exactly, do you care that information was withheld? Are you just mad about false advertising?
Oh come on are you seriously going to play dumb now? WikiLeaks had a very specific purpose and goal. You cannot possibly compare it to a standard news outlet. You are really stretching things here. This has become a total waste of time.
Journalism is journalism. Trying to frame WikiLeaks as somehow different from journalism is just US propaganda and it’s the basis for Assange facing over 100 years in prison.
The closest thing to "righteousness" said was: "his efforts for freedom of information should not land him in US torture prisons like many others."
Which, being true, it's absolutely not challenged or contradicted by anything you said in response.
Note that "freedom of information" is totally compatible with "picking and choosing" the manner in which you exercise that freedom. In fact, I'd argue that the freedom of "picking and choosing" what's published without external pressure is fundamentally what the freedom of press is about.
Assagne (like any other journalist) should have the freedom of "picking and choosing" what facts he wants to expose, as long as they are not fabrications. If they are shown to be intentionally fabricated then that's when things would be different... but if he's just informing, a mouthpiece, even if the information is filtered based on an editorial, then that's just journalism. That's a freedom that should be protected, instead of attacking him because he's publishing (or not publishing) this or that.
Not a single non US citizen should be extradited to the US. The US has the worst prison system and punishments outside of some really cruel regimes. They also refuse to work with international criminal courts.
Besides I’m pretty sure the guy only committed a crime in Sweden and not the US.
I’m not saying I condone what he did, but I can understand it from his perspective. I’d probably do the same thing if there were a country responsible for ruining my life and health and I had the information to inflict some damage.
I’m not sure what we are debating/discussing. If you’re going to claim you are a bastion of transparency and information for the general public, then no, you can’t weaponize your site and omit politically damaging information about political groups you agree with/are aligned with.
That’s not just revenge against the US. That’s failing to provide the transparency you claim to stand for. He chose to obscure information based on his own whims. How is that not an issue?
Wikileaks had their own leak and it was a very interesting read.
If you care about transparency so much i don’ think you would be here trying to belittle someone who spent the past years in jail for the sake of transparency.
I'm belittling someone who used transparency as a shield as they acted in accordance with their personal politics, chief among those actions being helping to install Donald fucking Trump as president, followed by fleeing to Russia to do his little propaganda show for the Kremlin/RT. Fuck Assange. He wields transparency like the american right does with free speech.
Fleeing where? Do you know where he has been for the past decade? How exactly did they used transparency as a shield and to defend from what?
If you are angry at Trump getting elected you should be angry at who voted for him and the media/government who advertised for it, not so much to one of the persons that exposed your government wrongdoings and corruption.
What does this have do with the fact he’s been jailed for years and is waiting extradition to usa? It literally looks like you are trying to spread dirt on him for no reason other than choosing what story to cover, something most publisher do on daily basis and on a much worst scale.
“Trump totally didn’t offer him a pardon to say Russia had nothing to do with it.”
You may have missed the part where he’s still in jail and the trump government had a plot to have him assasinated
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not that you’re wrong generally speaking, it’s that the only reason y’all are throwing this idea out there is because “it sounds like something the government would do.”
A lot of people and groups are capable of a lot of things. That’s not evidence.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add comment