>Assange who is being persecuted. Second, he himself has been ill-treated to the point that he is now exhibiting symptoms of psychological torture.
And then
>In summary: Julian Assange uncovered torture, has been tortured himself
This is one of the reasons I don't trust this rapporteur, because he seems to make those claims interchangeably when they very clearly aren't the same thing. Can you show signs of psychological torture without someone actually torturing you? Yes. So either make the real claim - that someone has been torturing him and explain why. Or make the PR claim - that he has shown symptoms of psychological torture. But don't swing back and forth between two very different things.
The guy literally repeats thoroughly debunked tropes from Assange's defence.
>Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?
Because the person they were investigating left the country and then put up one of the most extensive appeals against extradition in history and then fled to an embassy. If Assange had complied with the extradition those charges would have been filed when he returned to Sweden within months of the investigation being opened.
You know, you can't have it both ways, you can't claim it's terrible it's been going on so long for a process that was deliberately dragged out.
Did you read the article? Because it looks like you didn't.
> Because the person they were investigating left the country and then put up one of the most extensive appeals against extradition in history and then fled to an embassy.
No, he didn't. He asked not to be extradited to a foreign country where there is a risk his human rights will not be respected - which is standard international practice. He gave several dates where we would be available for questioning. He turned himself up to the police for questioning. All of those were denied to him.
Firstly, you're literally talking about the contention of his legal appeal that I mentioned. Secondly, most extradition appeals don't go to the High court, let alone the supreme court - which is why I mentioned that he literally had one of the most extensive appeals in history.
I also find it hilariously comical to see the absurd level of legal recourse Assange was afforded whilst people claimed that he is having his human rights violated. Somehow we're now in a world where someone shouldn't be extradited to Sweden from the UK because they're going to have their human rights violated. I'd love to hear the exact details of how exactly his rights would be violated, but frankly I think it's going to be more Gish galloping.
>Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W.
>On the basis of the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was filed against the public prosecutor’s attempt to suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010, the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal representative by the name of Claes Borgström was appointed to the two women at public cost. The man was a law firm partner to the previous justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose supervision Swedish security personnel had seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized without any kind of legal proceedings and then handed over to the CIA, who proceeded to torture them.
This may be how his right could be violated in Sweden.
Not clear what your issue with the rapporteur is? He makes which claims interchangeably? Assange uncovered torture and is tortured? Those are mutually exclusive?
What do you say to the other claims regarding the misbehavior of the Swedish police and prosecutor? You seem to be saying that despite these irregularities, Assange had nothing to worry about if he were innocent, and just should have submitted to extradition? That's a remarkable assertion.
I literally quoted the two claims he makes interchangeably. He makes two very different claims and then seems to imply they're the same thing and then provides no evidence for the actual serious claim. They're not mutually exclusive, one is a much more serious claim than the other and yet he's not provided any evidence for it.
As for the other claims by the Swedish police, I can go through every single point that he makes, but I think we'd all agree that's probably over the top for a HN comment. One of the highlights is his assertion that it constitutes misbehaviour for the police to act on a report of a crime simply and should have deferred to the witness's interpretation of the law. The woman reported that Assange had sex with her under false pretences, now I'm not an expert on Swedish law, but I'm fairly certain its not down to the woman reporting that to decide whether that constitutes a crime or not. That's what the rapporteur is claiming, which seems a rather bizarre and ridiculous claim to make for someone who is meant to be a respected voice at the UN.
"I literally quoted the two claims he makes interchangeably."
You did, but I was asking for clarification, since I didn't understand your issue with this. That he uses them "interchangeably"? Maybe we'll have to disagree, since I either I still don't understand, or I do understand and don't think that's true. Assange alleges torture. Assange is allegedly tortured. Those aren't used interchangeably in the interview, and are two distinct concepts.
"They're not mutually exclusive, one is a much more serious claim than the other and yet he's not provided any evidence for it."
Do you know that he's not provided evidence for it? Or do you mean he didn't provide evidence in the interview? What evidence would satisfy you? I guess not the testimony of the two medical experts on torture who examined him in solitary confinement; nor the fact that he has been in solitary confinement for 51 weeks. If you don't know the effects of solitary confinement on the human mind, here are some links: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=solitary+confinement+effects&atb=v...
"As for the other claims by the Swedish police, I can go through every single point that he makes, but I think we'd all agree that's probably over the top for a HN comment. One of the highlights is his assertion that it constitutes misbehaviour for the police to act on a report of a crime simply and should have deferred to the witness's interpretation of the law."
Hmm. To my mind, that's cherry-picking a very weak element and arguing against that. You're absolutely correct that the police should be able to pursue a crime even if the victim does not believe herself to be a victim, and if that were the entirety of the Rapporteur's testimony, or even a major part of it, then you would be correct! But that's not even a trivial point that he makes. Piling on the emotional words "bizarre" and "ridiculous" doesn't strengthen your point.
How about steel-manning your argument against the article?
I live in the Nordic region. It simply never happens that someone is named in the press before trial. And yet, here we have leaks about Assange going out to the press in highly unusual circumstances. From the authorities themselves. Twice.
Along with the woman deciding not to press charges, we have Assange repeatedly turning himself into police to make a statement, and the statement not being accepted. We have Assange informing the prosecutor that he will be leaving the country, and the prosecutor acknowledging this. We have the prosecutor issuing an arrest warrant the day he leaves. We have Assange agreeing to return to Sweden with assurances that he will not be extradited. We have more, but it's all right there in the article.
Out of all of that, you decide to focus on one small component, the weakest, and thereby reject the entirety of the testimony as "bizarre" and "ridiculous".
The Rapporteur has presented some very damning testimony that, if true, indicates the world is less safe for you and me. It's not about Assange. It's not about sexual assault. I don't know why people can't see that.
And then
>In summary: Julian Assange uncovered torture, has been tortured himself
This is one of the reasons I don't trust this rapporteur, because he seems to make those claims interchangeably when they very clearly aren't the same thing. Can you show signs of psychological torture without someone actually torturing you? Yes. So either make the real claim - that someone has been torturing him and explain why. Or make the PR claim - that he has shown symptoms of psychological torture. But don't swing back and forth between two very different things.
The guy literally repeats thoroughly debunked tropes from Assange's defence.
>Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?
Because the person they were investigating left the country and then put up one of the most extensive appeals against extradition in history and then fled to an embassy. If Assange had complied with the extradition those charges would have been filed when he returned to Sweden within months of the investigation being opened.
You know, you can't have it both ways, you can't claim it's terrible it's been going on so long for a process that was deliberately dragged out.