• rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.