3 ms·

a) doesn't really seem a fair representation: UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, speaks in detail about the explosive findings of his investigation

a) doesn't really seem a fair representation: UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, speaks in detail about the explosive findings of his investigation into the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.: 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... (someone linked to this in yesterdays comments its an amazing read though depressing) b) He is being detained in a way that is regarded inhumane, but its still better than being epsteined. Assange may be a bit of a greaser, he may be an egotist, he may be lacking in social skills - he may even be wanting to be famous for his work in a way that makes him an arse personally... but i still want our legal systems to be fair and my government not commit war crimes and openly investigate any accusation of them. Also note that i firmly believe that if any commenter on this site was to be the target of such a campaign that we would all look like scumbags when scrutinised with such bias.

corin_ 6y ago
I completely agree that he shouldn't be detained inhumanely, but if he's a flight risk it's right that he should be detained until the court rules on extradition. What should change is the inhumaine bit. (And I also agree that the US shouldn't have a case against him, and I strongly hope our legal system in the UK will reject the extradition, though I'm not very optimistic). edit: And even if the Swedish accusations are 100% false and political; the UK legal system shouldn't be expected to jump to that conclusion without investigation if presented with an international warrant for his arrest.
nsajko 6y ago
Nils Melzer is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868
- useriousbro 6y ago
  My understanding of the above link: The accusation that police changed the statement from the witness may be false or even deliberately exaggerated. Not extactly that he is blanket full of shit or did i miss something? But Nils onky asked Sweden to respond to the question, which they didnt do.. not even a short: sorry you got the wrong end of the stick there. Which given the attention of the case seems weird. It also doesnt really say anything about his treatment in the uk the lack of gurantee not to be extrodited, the leaking of accusations to the press, lack of aninimity for the accused etc. And to be clear sweden didnt respond to any of Nils' questions, why? Is the UN really just a joke? If so isnt that still really bad? Please feel free to expand on why you dont trust a single thing he says, but at the moment your comment doesnt seem justified.
- vidarh 6y ago
  There's absolutely no evidence that he is "full of shit" in that link. There's a reasonable question about what exactly that one exchange refers to, but that is one small part of the total set of claims. But even if one assumes that this is "routine" and that it "just" refers to adding information, it's shocking - it reveals a lack of audit trail of changes. The key part of this claim - that the alleged victim didn't sign the statements - has been known since the case originally broke, and basically means that there is no justifiable basis for trusting the statement, even before the exchange about modifications raises the concern about provenance and audit trail. But add on the exchange, and whether or not the police officers involved did anything wrong, it means the content of these statements can not be trusted because they could have modified them.

corin_ 6y ago

I completely agree that he shouldn't be detained inhumanely, but if he's a flight risk it's right that he should be detained until the court rules on extradition. What should change is the inhumaine bit. (And I also agree that the US shouldn't have a case against him, and I strongly hope our legal system in the UK will reject the extradition, though I'm not very optimistic). edit: And even if the Swedish accusations are 100% false and political; the UK legal system shouldn't be expected to jump to that conclusion without investigation if presented with an international warrant for his arrest.

nsajko 6y ago

Nils Melzer is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868

useriousbro 6y ago
My understanding of the above link: The accusation that police changed the statement from the witness may be false or even deliberately exaggerated. Not extactly that he is blanket full of shit or did i miss something? But Nils onky asked Sweden to respond to the question, which they didnt do.. not even a short: sorry you got the wrong end of the stick there. Which given the attention of the case seems weird. It also doesnt really say anything about his treatment in the uk the lack of gurantee not to be extrodited, the leaking of accusations to the press, lack of aninimity for the accused etc. And to be clear sweden didnt respond to any of Nils' questions, why? Is the UN really just a joke? If so isnt that still really bad? Please feel free to expand on why you dont trust a single thing he says, but at the moment your comment doesnt seem justified.
vidarh 6y ago
There's absolutely no evidence that he is "full of shit" in that link. There's a reasonable question about what exactly that one exchange refers to, but that is one small part of the total set of claims. But even if one assumes that this is "routine" and that it "just" refers to adding information, it's shocking - it reveals a lack of audit trail of changes. The key part of this claim - that the alleged victim didn't sign the statements - has been known since the case originally broke, and basically means that there is no justifiable basis for trusting the statement, even before the exchange about modifications raises the concern about provenance and audit trail. But add on the exchange, and whether or not the police officers involved did anything wrong, it means the content of these statements can not be trusted because they could have modified them.