To quote Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" Fighting extradition was one thing, but asylum from Ecuador has me fairly convinced there is more to the change than I originally thought.
This has been discussed to death, but... it's not the arrest warrant that caused the large police presence, it was the fact that someone that is trying to avoid deportation was using embassy soil to do so, while flaunting it and being in the centre of a large amount of controversy.
If Assange had just gone to Sweden like he was expected to then nothing would have happened with the police, if any high value media personality was wanted on an international arrest warrant and sought refuge in an embassy like Assange has done it would have warranted the same media attention and thus the same police presence.
The Assange case may be full of suspicious circumstances, but I don't think the heavy police presence at the embassy is anything other than the result of the media circus surrounding the situation (which is of Assange's own creation).
Forget the embassy. This man had an Interpol Red Notice issued because he is wanted for questioning about why he did not wear a condom with someone he had been sleeping with regularly.
Does that sound like standard operating procedure to you?
And what's this "If Assange had gone to Sweden" nonsense. He was in Sweden, in fact he prolonged his stay for a month and a half longer trying to talk to police. They did not even want to interview him.
Now months later they're trying to extradite him back into country.
If you don't find this all suspicious, then you aren't paying attention.
The part I don't understand about this view is why would Sweden be more likely to extradite him to the US than the UK would?
If it is a conspiracy, then I would say that the point is to discredit him and to tie him up dealing with these charges, rather than talking to the media about WikiLeaks.
> The part I don't understand about this view is why would Sweden be more likely to extradite him to the US than the UK would?
Sweden has cooperated with handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA, knowing they would be sent back to Egypt to be tortured, in blatant violation of Swedish law and international obligations. Wikileaks published documents showing that years after CIA rendition flights had supposedly stopped, the US ambassador had been officially summoned to receive a complaint after Swedish military intelligence had uncovered that they were still happening, with the knowledge of airport staff.
Meanwhile, in the UK, there are extradition cases that have gone on for a decade with no resolution, as UK courts take this very seriously, and a substantial portion of extradition requests from the US are refused.
To add on to that, consider the behaviour of the Swedish police and prosecutors. Maybe they are just inept. Maybe there are other motives for how they've acted. But if you're someone like Assange, who has seen several US politicians calling for him to be executed, coupled with past illegal handovers from Sweden to the CIA, it wouldn't be that strange to get a bit paranoid about things such as why the case was reopened after it had been closed, and why the prosecutors categorically refuse to interview him abroad, when they've done that for substantially more serious crimes.
Personally I think that the most likely explanation is not US involvement, but "just" political point-scoring by the prosecutor and appointed lawyer for the alleged victims, both of whom have a history of trying to get support for making Swedish laws regarding rape substantially stricter.
Assange is a CIA high value target. He qualifies 100%.
Swedens defenses against CIA/NSA operatives, actively operating in their country, are likely to be more penetrable than those of the UK, or at least more malleable to the CIA's needs.
Myself, I think its less likely that the CIA can do a body-switch when Assange is in the embassy, than on the plane to Sweden .. but thats just pure fantasy of course. The CIA would never do a body-switch to take out a political target ..
Are you implying that the police presence was demanded by the media so that they could have a better story, because there was "controversy?" I'm not sure that's a good justification for the use of public resources.
- "The world is watching, so we better not let him get away."
- "If he uses the embassy to avoid charges in such a public manner, could set a 'dangerous' precedent."
- "The UK will have 'egg on its face' if they let him use this to get away."
- "We need to save face, the world is watching."
- "This guy is pissing me off. I normally wouldn't care too much, but he is flaunting his situation to the media, so I can't back down now."
- etc...
No one is saying that "The Media" specifically called for this sort of action. It's the "eyes of the world" that limit options. If this wasn't all over the news, it would be more likely that they might just let him go, but with the world watching "THEY ARE LETTING A CRIMINAL GET AWAY!!!" would be the next headline were they to let this slide.
There is at least one politician, who's name completely escapes me at the moment but she was either a rep in the EU parliament or the swedish one, who confirmed that extradition to the US from Sweden was the entire point of the circus.
And Bradley Manning is still being tortured in military prison right now.
I haven't seen anything to make this seem ridiculous or even unlikely. If he was convicted of treason, as he would be, I can't imagine being public would mean anything other than more media attention.
edit: as pyre pointed out by torture i mean extended solitary confinement. I call it torture because everyone who studies it calls it so. However it is true that people think the hypothetical Joe "ignorant american voter stereotype" Average disagrees. If you feel my use of the word "torture" was unfounded then do look at the literature and read the statements of people who have experienced both extended solitary confinement/sensory deprivation and physical torture. I am very certain you will agree with me afterwards.
> Bradley Manning is still being tortured in
> military prison right now.
Until more people consider solitary confinement a form of torture, you're not going to win in-roads with this, as people equate torture with physical violence.
I happen to agree that solitary confinement is a form of torture regardless of whether or not he was stripped and left naked for 7 hours. My point was that the 'average Joe' pictures medieval torture devices (or someone tied to a chair and being beaten), when they hear talk of torture. So trying to claim that he was tortured because he was left naked for a few hours (or is in permanent solitary confinement) isn't going to win over anyone in that respect.
I'd venture that the internal monologue goes something like:
" Tortured? He's just left in a birthday suit for a bit,
and doesn't get to socialize. How bad could that be?
Jack Bauer resists being beaten while tied to a chair
every other episode, and still has the strength to
save that day! This Bradley Manning guy is just a
pussy. "
I'll say it this way: Americans have never been so privacy deprived and frightened of their government as they have been in the last decade.
No one expects Obama to defend your civil liberties. He's invisible most of the time. A middle man to the oligarchy. Some say he is a great "centerist", but I say he's a man with no morals.
Since I find the kill list/drone strikes/unaccountable assassination of civilians issue particularly troubling I can see where you are coming from.
I'm just not convinced that this is a shift in terms of the "US government have been doing whatever the hell they want lately, civil liberties and public opinions be damned" statement. The specifics are different now and the tools for manufacturing consent or controversy are always shifting but the lack of concern for civil liberties or public opinion (beyond what's necessary for horse-race politics) seems like a "new boss, same as the old boss" type thing to me.
