> The Iraq release from Manning's leak occurred after he left Sweden. Getting him back onto Swedish soil would have been the first step.
Assange lived happily on Swedish soil for ages, apparently without any particular fear of unlawful rendition. He voluntarily attended a police station regarding sex offence allegations, his lawyer had ongoing discourse with the prosecutor regarding the reopening of the case, and he was still happy to continue live in Sweden. He then left the country when they informed his lawyer they did want to charge him.
I'm not sure the fact the US wasn't even aware of the Iraq release at the time undermines my observation that this behaviour looks more like somebody seeking to avoid facing sex offences charges in court than unlawful abduction. And likewise that Swedish actions look like a slow motion bureaucratic response to sex offence allegations that would have been tricky to prosecute and not a dastardly plot to get him to the US.
The fact the US has subsequently chosen to actually open a case against him based on something they didn't even know about at the time doesn't really change that (although FWIW I think it's politically unwise for them to bother)
> The UK has never allowed rendition from the British isles, and certainly would not allow a former colony to subvert their court system.
Apart from British soil having been a stopping point for CIA rendition flights and its enthusiastic cooperation with US schemes overseas, the UK has also routinely bent its own law to deport asylum seekers before their appeals are completed in manner not dissimilar to the Swedish cases which keep getting cited. (The same Home Secretary that was happy to push the unlawful 'deport first, appeal later' policy was, ironically, also the only thing stopping Gary McKinnon from being legally deported to the US after exhausting every single appeal, because our court system isn't that fussed that the US might be overzealous with national security related hacking prosecutions. But I doubt Assange had much hope of helpful intervention from her...)
Assange lived happily on Swedish soil for ages, apparently without any particular fear of unlawful rendition. He voluntarily attended a police station regarding sex offence allegations, his lawyer had ongoing discourse with the prosecutor regarding the reopening of the case, and he was still happy to continue live in Sweden. He then left the country when they informed his lawyer they did want to charge him.
I'm not sure the fact the US wasn't even aware of the Iraq release at the time undermines my observation that this behaviour looks more like somebody seeking to avoid facing sex offences charges in court than unlawful abduction. And likewise that Swedish actions look like a slow motion bureaucratic response to sex offence allegations that would have been tricky to prosecute and not a dastardly plot to get him to the US.
The fact the US has subsequently chosen to actually open a case against him based on something they didn't even know about at the time doesn't really change that (although FWIW I think it's politically unwise for them to bother)
> The UK has never allowed rendition from the British isles, and certainly would not allow a former colony to subvert their court system.
Apart from British soil having been a stopping point for CIA rendition flights and its enthusiastic cooperation with US schemes overseas, the UK has also routinely bent its own law to deport asylum seekers before their appeals are completed in manner not dissimilar to the Swedish cases which keep getting cited. (The same Home Secretary that was happy to push the unlawful 'deport first, appeal later' policy was, ironically, also the only thing stopping Gary McKinnon from being legally deported to the US after exhausting every single appeal, because our court system isn't that fussed that the US might be overzealous with national security related hacking prosecutions. But I doubt Assange had much hope of helpful intervention from her...)