US diplomatic cables to be dropped by wikileaks; US doing pre-emptive damage control

[archibaldcrane]

The extradition request is extraordinary and unprecedented for an "interview", and he's fighting it because he's clearly getting singled out for political reasons.

So he's being defiant just to be defiant, is what you're saying?

If it were a normal, run of the mill extradition circumstance, he'd probably react to it differently. Since it's clearly politically motivated, yeah he's being a dick about it.

[Pirian]

Well yeah I know. Since it seems I wasn't clear about my question let me try again: while yes, everyone is sure that the Swedish putting out the call for a "personal interview", or whatever it was, and asking for the extradition was politically motivated - no one thinks this is a ploy with the US government in getting Assange to the states where they can make up reasons to hold him until they come up with something to charge him with?

This is my question, and what I'm not getting the opinion of you all on. Everyone seems to be dismissing this or not considering it among the possibilities. I was, for some reason, assuming that he wished to stay in GB because he thought that government less likely to work with the US government in extraditing him

[archibaldcrane]

Oh, no, I'm right there with you, the second he touches Swedish soil he's gonna get black-bagged and shipped to Guantanamo.

[aurik]

I don't know that he's any safer in Britain. He's not really safe anywhere unless he's in the spotlight, so being under house arrest awaiting extradition may the best thing possible for him.

[Uzor]

Well yeah I know. Since it seems I wasn't clear about my question let me try again: while yes, everyone is sure that the Swedish putting out the call for a "personal interview", or whatever it was, and asking for the extradition was politically motivated - no one thinks this is a ploy with the US government in getting Assange to the states where they can make up reasons to hold him until they come up with something to charge him with?

This is my question, and what I'm not getting the opinion of you all on. Everyone seems to be dismissing this or not considering it among the possibilities. I was, for some reason, assuming that he wished to stay in GB because he thought that government less likely to work with the US government in extraditing him

Oh, no, I'm right there with you, the second he touches Swedish soil he's gonna get black-bagged and shipped to Guantanamo.

He won't, Reinfeldt himself said that he has no desire to play along with the US request to ship him to the states as they do not have a crime to charge him with. It is why the US is working so hard on building an actual case so they can demand an extradition.

[archibaldcrane]

He won't, Reinfeldt himself said that he has no desire to play along

>implying the US won't just snatch him anyway

[Uzor]

Why would they? That would create some quite grand diplomatic repercussions. It's highly likely the US act nice and send us FBI agents to help out with the suicide bombing incident in Stockholm as a bargaining chip, but Swedish and English government would get a lot of shit from handing him over - and the US government would get a fuckload from kidnapping him.

[aurik]

Nobody cares about demonstrators.

[archibaldcrane]

Why would they? That would create some quite grand diplomatic repercussions. It's highly likely the US act nice and send us FBI agents to help out with the suicide bombing incident in Stockholm as a bargaining chip, but Swedish and English government would get a lot of shit from handing him over - and the US government would get a fuckload from kidnapping him.

You do realize that we invade nations, kill thousands of people, assassinate world leaders, prop up brutal dictators, etc. etc.

You really think the blowback from a Julian Assange snatching would be that bad?

[notorious bum]

With as many enemies he's made lately, he could literally disappear and never be found.

That or we could just use the good ol' lone, nutcase, super-accurate, physics-defying sniper that has done the job for us in the past.

[Uzor]

You do realize that we invade nations, kill thousands of people, assassinate world leaders, prop up brutal dictators, etc. etc.

You really think the blowback from a Julian Assange snatching would be that bad?

Both politically and from the population, it would be quite bad, yes. The things you mentioned in the above post are to countries you're enemies with. It wouldn't go over well if you did it to allied countries. And whether you like to think so or not, Europe is an important ally.

If we go with the things you mentioned above, how well do you think an invasion of one of the countries in EU would be for USA as a nation? While we're at it, why do you think USA has not invaded China or Russia yet if you're so mighty and powerful and can do whatever you like?

And no, I'm not saying an assassination of Julian Assange would lead to war - because it wouldn't - but since you seem to like to tout the horn that USA is invincible and can invade whoever they want, entertain the thought of how that would play out and what the repercussions for USA, Europe and the rest of the world would be.

My point is, USA may be a powerful nation, but they still want to keep their allies and wouldn't do shady things just because they want to get rid of someone who's a mild inconvenience - especially after the documents that's already been released and is in the process of being released. Do you really think Obama is so stupid that he would risk diplomatic and political ties to assassinate or kidnap someone who currently every media outlet in the world are watching with hawk eyes? Who, for every intent and purpose, is a high profile character? If it was Osama we were talking about, that would be an entirely different case altogether, but he'd had been shipped to USA a long time ago.

[archibaldcrane]

Both politically and from the population, it would be quite bad, yes.

I get that you live there, but Sweden isn't an "important US ally". We'd survive just fine without a steady supply of Volvos and Saabs.

Spoiler: show

I don't actually think we're going to black-bag Assange

[Uzor]

I get that you live there, but Sweden isn't an "important US ally". We'd survive just fine without a steady supply of Volvos and Saabs.

Spoiler: show

I don't actually think we're going to black-bag Assange

I was talking about EU, not Sweden.

[archibaldcrane]

I was talking about EU, not Sweden.

I'm sure the EU would throw the US under the bus to protect a dickhead Aussie in Swedish custody.

[Uzor]

Again, that's not what I was talking about. Do try and keep up with the conversation.

[aurik]

Europe would get over it. Remember Litvinenko?

But the US wouldn't do it, they'd just pressure a shady friend nation to do it for them.

[aurik]

Also you're dumb if you think Archie was referencing invading the EU in any sense in his comment. Massive war weariness and unhappiness at home didn't do shit to stop Iraq II, nor did it really stop Vietnam even.

[clobetasol]

The USA doesn't give a shit about what other countries think, they purposely lied to its citizens and other countries to invade Iraq. If Bush was still president, I'm certain Chaney and him would be eating Assange's dick.

[Uzor]

Also you're dumb if you think Archie was referencing invading the EU in any sense in his comment. Massive war weariness and unhappiness at home didn't do shit to stop Iraq II, nor did it really stop Vietnam even.

I know he wasn't.

Jesus, can you people even read? The reason I mentioned invading Europe was because you guys seem to think America is invincible and can do whatever it wants. USA is a large and powerful country, but it still can't do whatever it wants.

And wtf are you talking about Litvinenko? That's a different situation entirely. First of, Russia and Europe wasn't even allied at the time, and second of, Litvinenko was poisoned by a Russian agent, and he had committed crimes on Russian soil. The reason relations were cooled, though, wasn't because of the murder itself, but because of the murder investigation - and because England claimed to have it under control and refused a separate Russian investigation, which angered Russia. This was revealed in, oh, last week's wikileaks cables I believe?

Either way, it still didn't help the situation between the nations, and it certainly wouldn't strengthen things between USA and Europe either if USA were to murder him.

Tell me something, exactly why don't you think something will happen? I mean, both of you have said that USA is so powerful it doesn't care about other nations. Why, if it is so powerful, wouldn't it do as it want and kill Assange off? You said yourself that it wouldn't be hard for them. You have to have a reason why they wouldn't, and I would love to hear it.

[BerenTebogo]

I know he wasn't.

Jesus, can you people even read? The reason I mentioned invading Europe was because you guys seem to think America is invincible and can do whatever it wants. USA is a large and powerful country, but it still can't do whatever it wants.

And wtf are you talking about Litvinenko? That's a different situation entirely. First of, Russia and Europe wasn't even allied at the time, and second of, Litvinenko was poisoned by a Russian agent, and he had committed crimes on Russian soil. The reason relations were cooled, though, wasn't because of the murder itself, but because of the murder investigation - and because England claimed to have it under control and refused a separate Russian investigation, which angered Russia. This was revealed in, oh, last week's wikileaks cables I believe?

Either way, it still didn't help the situation between the nations, and it certainly wouldn't strengthen things between USA and Europe either if USA were to murder him.

Tell me something, exactly why don't you think something will happen? I mean, both of you have said that USA is so powerful it doesn't care about other nations. Why, if it is so powerful, wouldn't it do as it want and kill Assange off? You said yourself that it wouldn't be hard for them. You have to have a reason why they wouldn't, and I would love to hear it.

Actually, we're still about 10 years of EU / UN expansions, US decline, and global development before the USA can no longer do anything we want. Our downward slide vs. the worlds' lessening dependency on us isn't happening fast enough right now for people to make /too/ much noise over anything the US does.