The article discusses the controversial handling of the rape allegations against Julian Assange by Swedish authorities, highlighting the investigative work of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. Melzer's findings suggest that the Swedish police may have manipulated the statements of the women involved to construct a narrative of rape where none existed. This narrative was then used to issue an international arrest warrant for Assange, complicating his legal situation and contributing to his long confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Key points include the revelation that one of the women did not accuse Assange of rape but had her statement altered by the police. This alteration occurred under instructions from higher authorities, as evidenced by an email directing the change. The case against Assange was further complicated by the involvement of a second woman, whose testimony was also questionable and possibly influenced by external influences, including a friend in the police force.
> Key points include the revelation that one of the women did not accuse Assange of rape but had her statement altered by the police.
AFAICR, they showed up and said "What he did feels wrong, surely that must be some sort of crime?". She wasn't jumped and gang-raped in an alley, so she didn't know it legally counted as rape; the police helped her put the correct name to it. Doesn't seem at all as suspect as you're trying to make it.
> This alteration occurred under instructions from higher authorities, as evidenced by an email directing the change.
Oh my, someone asking their boss what to do and the boss telling them? Wow, that must be a conspiracy!
> The case against Assange was further complicated by the involvement of a second woman, whose testimony was also questionable and possibly influenced by external influences, including a friend in the police force.
Idunno, sounds like you're trying to give the impression that having two cases in stead of one should make the allegations less plausible...? Is that how you usually think about things like that; "Oh, this guy is said to have commited several burglaries, that clearly makes him less suspect than this other guy who is supposed to have committed only one"?
Yes, I remember his bad faith offers, thinking that he has the right to decide on how a sovereign country's justice system should work. What I don't remember was any reasoning on why he thought it more likely that he'd be extradited from Sweden to the US rather than from the UK, who are particularly close?
Anyway, I see you've drunk the koolaid and are in full defense mode, so I'll leave you to it.
You broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread. Regardless of how right you are or feel you are, that's not allowed here, and we have to ban accounts that do it because it destroys what this site is for.
> What I don't remember was any reasoning on why he thought it more likely that he'd be extradited from Sweden to the US rather than from the UK, who are particularly close?
Not long before the Assange case ended, Swedish police kidnapped two asylum seekers (and yes, kidnapped is the right term - it was not an arrest, and has since been found to violate Swedish law) and handed them over to the CIA who handed them over to the regime they fled, which subsequently tortured them. The kidnapping and rendition was both a violation of Swedish law, and a violation of international treaties, and yet nothing happened to the people responsible to my knowledge.
You might see why someone who believed - rightfully, as it turned out years later - the US wanted to file charges and get their hands on him, might worry that the Swedish government would turn a blind eye to him being handed over to the US.
Whether or not he was right to fear that, it seems reasonable to believe his fear was genuine, not least because he chose to put himself in a situation that has kept him imprisoned in inhumane conditions far longer than he would've ever served if he was convicted of what he was accused of in Sweden.
The UK has resisted on more than one occasion. That the Assange extradition saga has lasted this long, is a prime example of that. Other cases before them has shown that the UK courts have a spine, and UK politicians, while they have far more power to override the courts if they're willing to do so openly before parliament are too timid to let things like the kidnapping and renditions Sweden were complicit in happen.
But in any case, the issue isn't whether he was right, but whether he believed he'd be safer in the UK than Sweden, and I think the Swedish prosecutor did a whole lot to make him worry that something fishy was going on. I've written more than once over the years I think she was acting out of political/ideological reasons (specifically, she had a long history of fighting for much stricter treatment of rape cases) rather than due to US pressure, but the net effect was a whole string of incidents around the case that'd easily look mighty suspicious for someone worrying about the US trying to get them.
I don't know whether or not he was right to fear it, but I'm surprised he was.
> Yes, I remember his bad faith offers, thinking that he has the right to decide on how a sovereign country's justice system should work.
Note that "I will come to your soil if and only if you make such and such promise" is not deciding how their justice system should work. It just means that if they don't get the promise, they will not come to their soil. Likewise, we could point out that Sweden has no right to force someone out of their jurisdiction to turn themselves in.
> What I don't remember was any reasoning on why he thought it more likely that he'd be extradited from Sweden to the US rather than from the UK, who are particularly close?
Sweden has a history of extradition, the treaties aren't the same… and though at the time Assange wasn't formally charged by the US, if I recall correctly he did have (founded) suspicions that a grand jury was put on his case. At the time, his chances of being extradited from Sweden rather than the UK were higher.
> you've drunk the koolaid and are in full defense mode
Someone has gone full attack, and I suspect this is not just about "striking a balance".
Kind of sad that mindset's like yours exist, i don't want a society where such a prosecution can be called fair and legal, but maybe we come from different worlds.
Do you just not care at all that’s it’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Swedish authorities changed and made up evidence against him? There’s official documents that say this. Meanwhile your bullshit hasn’t been proven at all.
You can't post like this here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. We have to ban accounts that do it because it destroys what this site is for.
