cross-posted from: https://lemmus.org/post/1242124
Assange, 52, has been in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison since 2019 and is wanted in the United States over the release of confidential U.S. military records and diplomatic cables in 2010.
“Assange is a symbol of free speech which is essential for any genuine democracy,” Raggi, who ran Rome’s city hall between 2016 and 2021, told Reuters.
“He has been deprived of his own liberty for years, in awful conditions, for doing his job as a journalist,” she said.
Other Italian cities have taken similar steps. The northern city of Reggio Emilia granted Assange citizenship last month, while Naples is set to follow shortly.
I’m not saying he’s innocent, but if the people who wanted to extradite him for that wanted to actually try him for that crime, then all they had to do was promise not to hand him over to the US.
Weird that they wouldn’t do that.
I honestly think he should stand trial, but clearly these charges are just a pretense to get him to the US. Ironically these women are just being used for cynical political manipulation.
If he had done the things he’s accused of with the Epstein crowd then nobody would be trying to extradite him for it.
It’s astounding how far people will go to defend a rapist with credible accusations.
Swedish law mandates that extradition decisions cannot be carried out in absentia.
Yes, clearly, it’s Sweden that’s way more likely to extradite him, not the UK, where he was arrested before skipping bail. /s
Funny enough, he’s almost certainly going to be extradited now, by the UK, who have him dead to rights for skipping bail and do NOT have the rules Sweden does about restricting extradition. If he had went to Sweden and stood trial, he might be free today, lmao.
“If the richest, most powerful rapists in the world don’t get justice served to them, why should the other rapists?”
If I took all your sentences and gave them the most bad-faith possible interpretation in isolation it’d sound pretty bad too, but only if the reader wasn’t paying attention.
You have some dispute with the middle two points?
The first point is supposed to be pointing out just how bad it sounds, and that you should take a step back before saying “He’s not innocent BUT” for a guy with very credible rape accusations leveled against him.
The last point is just taking your argument to its logical conclusion to display how absurd a whataboutism in this situation is,
Sweden could make an exception and offer amnesty, again if they really cared about the rape allegations.
And the third point is just “the imperial machine got him in the end lol lmao”, like, okay? Congrats the US gets to have their retribution anyway? How many US politicians have been rapists again? Does that matter to you, or only when the rape allegations are about people you don’t like? Those women still won’t get justice when he’s extradited.
If you’re angry that the women aren’t getting justice in this case, get angry at the realpolitik that forces them to be used as political footballs just to get any attention on their allegations at all. That’s not justice.
And obviously I didn’t say that women shouldn’t have justice because rich rapists get away with it. Like what the fuck are you talking about? You have to be purposely trying to miss my point to think that’s what I’m saying.
And it sounds bad? Yes, if you strip all context and insert your own, then sure, but like… that was my point, right? If all you have is the aesthetics of the argument then you have nothing of substance. You literally took the part where I said I wasn’t defending him and said I was defending him. Do you expect people to take this seriously?
God, I don’t know how to get this through. Do you not understand how a country with rule of law works? There was no chance of him being extradited. I don’t know what more you want. A super special legislative session just to intervene in a judiciary matter regarding an offense against private persons? So what, special extraconstitutional treatment for rapists if they’re really popular? Fuck that.
The third point is “If he had stood trial for rape instead of trying to play games, the ‘imperial machine’ probably WOULDN’T have gotten him.”
“to be used as political footballs”
Yes, I’m sure that was the point when Assange immediately fled Sweden, he was super concerned that these accusations were going to be turned into political theatre, and he thought the best way to avoid it was… fleeing Sweden to go to a more US-friendly country, skipping bail in that US-friendly country, and requesting asylum from a third country, all while broadcasting to whoever that would listen that it was all a conspiracy against him.
Maybe he’s just a rapist who didn’t want to get put in jail for, y’know, rape?
Yes, because the rapist spent half a decade in an embassy using PR from people like you to shield him from consequences until the case could no longer be pursued. How heroic.
No, I really don’t. The issue is Assange raping two women. When the issue is brought up, your response is, and I quote, “If he had done the things he’s accused of with the Epstein crowd then nobody would be trying to extradite him for it.”
In context, that’s either a whataboutism, which is nothing less than rape apologia of the kind I described, or a non-sequitur, in which case you’re ‘only’ throwing out nonsense with no relevance to the matter at hand.
Which is it?
“I’m not defending him BUT maybe the fault is with the country that’s trying to uphold its laws (Sweden)”
Yeah, no, have fun with the rape apology.
Okay, you’re still taking my statements in the worst way possible and I don’t believe you’ve understood my point in all of this.
If you want me to continue replying to any of this, I need an answer to this question: are you at all curious to understand what it is that I am trying to say?
I will take the lone downvote as a no then.
It’s difficult position, being asked if you’re curious to understand the other person, because if you say no, then you’ve forfeited any right to reply. You are admitting bad faith.
If you say yes, then you may be held to that standard, and the tactic of aggressively dictating the secret message you’ve divined between the other person’s words doesn’t work. If they tell you you’ve got their ideas wrong, then you have to listen, if you are in fact curious.
To be clear, I am curious to understand. If I’m not I’ll stop responding. It’s hard to glean the argument I was facing here, it was full of contradictions like, “Sweden would never extradite” but also “they cannot guarantee they will not extradite.” I would’ve liked to understand that one in particular. If that person comes back and admits to having curiosity, I will ask them about it.