4 ms·

No, the attacks on the Swedish prosecutors are fully warranted. He submitted to Swedish investigation multiple times. From the article: In this case, things ar

by tremon 7y ago

No, the attacks on the Swedish prosecutors are fully warranted. He submitted to Swedish investigation multiple times. From the article: In this case, things are constantly happening that shouldn’t actually be possible unless you look at them from a different angle. We have to stop believing that there was really an interest in leading an investigation into a sexual offense Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later [..] Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. [..] At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. [..] But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name. That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. [..] Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person. Assange’s lawyers petitioned Sweden’s highest court to force public prosecutors to either finally press charges or suspend the case. When the Swedes told the UK that they may be forced to abandon the case, the British wrote back, worriedly: «Don’t you dare get cold feet!!» Keep in mind, this is the UN's special rapporteur on torture, not some random opinion. Further on in the article: When a country like Sweden declines to answer questions submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, it shows that the government is aware of the illegality of its behavior and wants to take no responsibility for its behavior

nsajko 7y ago
So the prosecutor's and the police opinion are just "some random opinions"? Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it. Imagine someone else was sought by Sweden for multiple counts of sexual offence on different women, and then he (and his team of lawyers) used the extradition process to wait for the statute of limitations to pass so he would dodge even an investigation of the accusations. > During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person. This "smells" bad, but really even that (without elaboration) does not excuse the attacks on the Swedish justice system. I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though. I think there very well could be a reason for video-linked questioning to be appropriate in 44 cases, but not in Assange's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange... EDIT: Replying to children: The interview makes a narrative by presenting things out of context, but what they are doing is actually quite inappropriate in the case of the sexual assault allegations. Some examples: * They present the potential victims as unwilling regarding charging Assange with rape. The first problem with this is that it implies that rape is a civil matter, when (as is well known) it is in fact a crime. Thus the potential victims are only relevant as witnesses, they would not be parties to the case except as witnesses (and maybe they could get some damages). The second problem is that the two women were in fact quite interested in getting Assange prosecuted: they got legal representation, and prevented the prosecutors from dropping the investigation. * I do not think that it is necessarily suspicious that no DNA could be recovered from the condom. Especially in the context of the allegation, with Assange allegedly breaking the condom on purpose.
- rendall 7y ago
  Yes, I would like the Swedish government to respond, too. According to the interview - with the UN Rapporteur on Torture - he asked them and they refused to comment. Again, according to this fellow - who has experience in talking to governments - "No comment" is highly unusual _when the government in question has nothing to hide_. Are you resisting / dismissing that Assange may actually be innocent of the crimes that he is accused of because the implications are so terrifying? If so, I get it, man.
  - nsajko 7y ago
    Are you resisting / dismissing that Assange may actually be guilty of the crimes that he is accused of because the implications are so terrifying? Or just that the prosecutors and the police had good reason to believe so?
    - rendall 7y ago
      Snark isn't really necessary. It's fine that you think he's guilty. It would be great if you had salient responses to the specific claims of the article. Do you think the article is wrong irrespective of your feelings about Assange? If so, what?
      - nsajko 7y ago
        I do not "think he's guilty", but thanks for trying to discredit me by labeling me like that anyway.
- tremon 7y ago
  > Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged What makes you think that there was any evidence at all, to begin with? I can only point to the order of events: A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test [from Assange]. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21. Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence. > I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though. Yes, the UN special rapporteur wanted that too. He was ignored. What makes you think you'll fare better?

by tremon 7y ago

nsajko 7y ago

So the prosecutor's and the police opinion are just "some random opinions"? Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it. Imagine someone else was sought by Sweden for multiple counts of sexual offence on different women, and then he (and his team of lawyers) used the extradition process to wait for the statute of limitations to pass so he would dodge even an investigation of the accusations. > During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person. This "smells" bad, but really even that (without elaboration) does not excuse the attacks on the Swedish justice system. I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though. I think there very well could be a reason for video-linked questioning to be appropriate in 44 cases, but not in Assange's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange... EDIT: Replying to children: The interview makes a narrative by presenting things out of context, but what they are doing is actually quite inappropriate in the case of the sexual assault allegations. Some examples: * They present the potential victims as unwilling regarding charging Assange with rape. The first problem with this is that it implies that rape is a civil matter, when (as is well known) it is in fact a crime. Thus the potential victims are only relevant as witnesses, they would not be parties to the case except as witnesses (and maybe they could get some damages). The second problem is that the two women were in fact quite interested in getting Assange prosecuted: they got legal representation, and prevented the prosecutors from dropping the investigation. * I do not think that it is necessarily suspicious that no DNA could be recovered from the condom. Especially in the context of the allegation, with Assange allegedly breaking the condom on purpose.

rendall 7y ago
Yes, I would like the Swedish government to respond, too. According to the interview - with the UN Rapporteur on Torture - he asked them and they refused to comment. Again, according to this fellow - who has experience in talking to governments - "No comment" is highly unusual _when the government in question has nothing to hide_. Are you resisting / dismissing that Assange may actually be innocent of the crimes that he is accused of because the implications are so terrifying? If so, I get it, man.
- nsajko 7y ago
  Are you resisting / dismissing that Assange may actually be guilty of the crimes that he is accused of because the implications are so terrifying? Or just that the prosecutors and the police had good reason to believe so?
  - rendall 7y ago
    Snark isn't really necessary. It's fine that you think he's guilty. It would be great if you had salient responses to the specific claims of the article. Do you think the article is wrong irrespective of your feelings about Assange? If so, what?
    - nsajko 7y ago
      I do not "think he's guilty", but thanks for trying to discredit me by labeling me like that anyway.
tremon 7y ago
> Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged What makes you think that there was any evidence at all, to begin with? I can only point to the order of events: A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test [from Assange]. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21. Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence. > I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though. Yes, the UN special rapporteur wanted that too. He was ignored. What makes you think you'll fare better?