I would use the same terms to describe any fugitive on the run from rape charges. What on earth does Sweden have to gain or lose from this? This is just conspiracy theory.
Because whether he is charged or not, found innocent our guilty if charged or let go, it's certain that he will then be extradited to the USA where he has already been found guilty of crimes that actually aren't crimes due to his nationality and status as a journalist.
Sounds like pretty extenuating circumstances for a Swedish investigator to go to Britain to me, unless there's an actual law that says he MUST be questioned in Sweden
Why shouldn't it happen in Sweden? If they have the legal power to arrest him and question him, why should they bend over backwards and do it his way instead?
Somewhat, which is why I never weighed in on it before. But if the UK is threatening something as unusual as invading an embassy, that is evidence that there is likely to be something more to the issue.
No. I remember a situation, though no longer the details, where someone was accused of spying during the Cold War and fled to an embassy. He was effectively trapped there, just like Assange, but whoever was after him didn't violate the embassy. Like I said, I can't remember the details, not even the country involved, but I think he ended up spending several years confined to the embassy.
Well the victim of espionage is the state, and the state has nothing to gain by imprisoning the spy themselves rather than letting the spy imprison himself in a foreign embassy. With rape, there's an actual victim.
If Britain does this, then from now on every Chinese dissident that seeks refuge in a Western embassy will somehow magically find themselves charged with rape, and Chinese police will stand ready to enter to arrest him for said rape.
(Substitute China for any other dictatorship as you please)
It is an incredibly bad precedent to set, and I very much doubt they will go there.
Leaving police posted outside until people get bored of the whole thing, sure. Sending stern letters, sure. Calling the Ecuadorian embassy in to explain himself, sure. Maybe a few more things. Maybe even expelling some low level staff if things get really nasty.
But if they enter the embassy, then either someone is a complete idiot and haven't thought through consequences, or Assanges suspicions about US involvement suddenly becomes a lot more credible.
Let me get this straight--a citizen of Australia is a "dissident" against the United States, so the US government arranges for him to be accused of rape in Sweden, leading him to refuse to surrender to British police and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.
If the British enter the Ecuadorian embassy to extradite Assange to Sweden, this sets a precedent for the Chinese government to enter embassies in China to arrest Chinese dissidents accused of rape in China? No, because in the case of Assange, the idea that he's some kind of political prisoner subject to a CIA plot lies somewhere between conspiracy theory and delusion of grandeur, while in the case of Chinese dissidents, it would be plainly transparent what China was trying to do.
Plus, it turns out that China gets their dissidents to stop hiding out in western embassies by threatening to beat their wives to death. Dictatorships are much more direct than you give them credit for: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/world/asia/chen-guangcheng...
Facts: he has NOT been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. The two women in question have not accused him of rape or described the incidents in question as rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And at best this is a case of he-said/she-said, with no other witnesses or evidence --- which is a situation that can be physically consistent with a framing, and thus, especially the surrounding context, needs to be treated with extreme skepticism.
To throw out just a few data points of context: the US government has a history of violating international law, violating the sovereignty of other nations, and, most recently, of violating it's own Constitution. Also consider Gitmo. And consider how Bradley Manning was treated while in custody, before/without trial, before/without even charges.
According to Wikipedia he is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (this is presumably why he's hiding in a non-EU embassy).
Edit: arrest warrants don't always/usually imply that any charges have been filed. This is not unusual. The unusual part is a person accused of rape hiding out in the embassy of a country of which he is not a citizen, in a country of which he is not a citizen, while people cheer him on for being righteous.
I think you're conflating "charged" with "accused". As I understand it, two women have accused him of nonconsensual sex acts (we call that "rape"). He has not been formally charged with rape yet (because he's on the lam).
I really recommend you read the source/upstream material before making claims like that. First of all, the women have not accused him of rape. At worst, of having intercourse without a condom, against someone's momentary preference. With women who otherwise already willingly went to bed with him and became sexual partners with him. Neither woman wants charges against him. The documented reason why they approached the police originally was just to learn if he could be compelled to have an STD test performed. That's it. Also the original prosecutor who looked at it decided there wasn't anything to pursue, and not enough evidence to convict on anything. If you look at all the details of the case, and I mean ALL the details and context, I think there is only one of a few things that probably happened: either (1) it was a frame-up that the women were in on, or (2) it was not a frame-up by the women, not intentionally, they were honest, but some particular party in the Swedish government or law enforcement decided to "make hay" out of this as much as they could to hurt or impede Assange. Either of those scenarios seem to be the most consistent with everything known and observed to date.
Also I'm sure there have been millions if not billions of incidents of sex across the world, to date, if not happening again every day, where one or both participants preferred, either beforehand, or during, or afterward, that a condom was used, even though it wasn't, and in 99.99% of those cases nobody considers it "rape". At most, a non-ideal incident, a risky event, or something to get angry about with one's partner, in private. But I'm sure it's a very common occurrence, both between singles and married couples, and in the vast majority of cases it doesn't turn into claims of rape or major international diplomatic incidents. It's just one of those life oopsies. I bet a lot of children were brought into this world because of this kind of oopsie, however non-ideal. Regardless, it's a fact that they went to bed with him willingly. It's a fact that neither appeared distraught or made any complaints about it to friends afterward. It's a fact that there were no signs of violence or physical harm. Also it's a fact that a large percentage of women fantasize about dominant men, sexually. Is it possible that in this case Assange was too aggressive and insensitive? Absolutely! And who's business should that be? At most, Assange and these two other individuals. Period. End of story. And ultimately, those are the only people who really know, for sure, what really happened, and how it happened. The rest is spectacle and fodder for speculation and diplomatic warfare.
You honestly think it's easier to extradite someone to the states from Sweden as opposed to the UK? I would kindly suggest that you yourself should consider thinking this through.
If the endgame was to extradite Assange to the United States, why go through Sweden? Wouldn't it be easier just to extradite him directly from the UK to the US? It doesn't make any sense.
Because as close an ally as the UK is, the UK government likes to think of themselves as a partner and don't like to be bossed around or involved in too shady stuff, and UK courts certainly don't like to be meddled with.
Meanwhile, Sweden has a history of cooperating with the US on illegal renditions in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, to the point where Sweden has actually paid damages to at least one person - Muhammad al-Zery - who was tortured after Swedish police had handed him over to masked CIA officers at a Swedish airport and witnessed as he was stripped, drugged, chained and handcuffed and loaded on a plane to be flown to Egypt where he was tortured.
Said person was in Sweden applying for political asylum.
It caused diplomatic incidents when it was first revealed to the public and Swedish authorities "put a stop to it". Then shortly afterwards, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that it was still ongoing with the knowledge of airport personnel. At least officially without the knowledge of the Swedish government.
Maybe they've stopped now. Or maybe the units that participated in it are just better at hiding it, or maybe the US government is just better at making sure said Swedish government units have better reasons to deny knowledge.
But the fact remains that for sveral years, the US extracted prisoners from and/or transported prisoners through Sweden illegally to hand them over to regimes that would carry out torture in violation of both US and Swedish law and international treaties, with the complicit knowledge of the Swedish government.
It's quite possible the UK did too. But which government do you think the US cares the least about jerking around?
The problem with the Swedish police and legal system is seldom that they do bad things. The problem is rather that the employees doesn't get much done except drink coffee and administrate.
There is another possibility: Theoretically, both the women might be paid by CIA when Assange is extradited for questioning. But that is just another stupid conspiracy theory.
Edit: Clarity.
Edit 2: It is hard to take the arguments seriously, since Assange originally went to Sweden voluntarily without fearing extradition to USA. Wikileaks should just get a saner guy as front figure.
