4 ms·

> We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absco

> We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. 1. We now know it was indeed a setup. 2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

FireBeyond 7y ago
He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made. And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".
- einpoklum 7y ago
  No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave. Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair. Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes". Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
    - einpoklum 7y ago
      > Is there some inherent human right against persecution? "Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances. > Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too? 1. Assange was not charged with any crimes. 2. Assange did not avoid questioning - neither in Sweden nor in Ecuador (= Ecuadorian Embassy). He only avoided exposing himself to US-instigated persecution.
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        Accused. In intimate crimes, where the only witnesses are the accuser and accused, it is typically extremely rare to charge the accused absent any interview whatsoever, so the "he wasn't charged" doesn't change my point.
- markdown 7y ago
  > He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further. > 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, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. 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. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. 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. > Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials? This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading: > Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)? There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen. But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict: "The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings" is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.

FireBeyond 7y ago

He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made. And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".

einpoklum 7y ago
No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave. Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair. Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes". Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    > Is there some inherent human right against persecution? "Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances. > Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too? 1. Assange was not charged with any crimes. 2. Assange did not avoid questioning - neither in Sweden nor in Ecuador (= Ecuadorian Embassy). He only avoided exposing himself to US-instigated persecution.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      Accused. In intimate crimes, where the only witnesses are the accuser and accused, it is typically extremely rare to charge the accused absent any interview whatsoever, so the "he wasn't charged" doesn't change my point.
markdown 7y ago
> He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further. > 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, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. 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. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. 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. > Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials? This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading: > Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)? There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen. But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict: "The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings" is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.