He still can't leave. The US is just going to kidnap him off the streets of London. Wouldn't be the first time.

>He still can't leave. The US is just going to kidnap him off the streets of London. Wouldn't be the first time.

When was the last time the US kidnapped someone from London's streets?

I think you're being a tad literal there. The last case I remember was Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr who was kidnapped in Italy and brought to Egypt by the CIA in 2005. Italy's streets are not less intrinsically sacred than England's.

>I think you're being a tad literal there. The last case I remember was Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr who was kidnapped in Italy and brought to Egypt by the CIA in 2005. Italy's streets are not less intrinsically sacred than England's.

I'm being literal on purpose.

Look at the other replies to me; everyone talks about the CIA, yourself included, and ignores the fact that Italy was working hand-in-hand with the CIA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

That's very different, and it remains absolutely disgusting nonetheless.

Ok, so is it your contention that the UK would not co-operate in similar fashion? And, if so, why? Genuine sense of political autonomy or PR?

> Ok, so is it your contention that the UK would not co-operate in similar fashion? And, if so, why? Genuine sense of political autonomy or PR?

My contention is that the US would not kidnap him from London's streets.

Word choice is important; I'm sick to the back teeth of hyperbole backed up with "wouldn't be the first time."

Is it hyperbole when it has actually happened before?

Surely a precedent means the suggestion is not hyperbolic?

I don't know why you're being downvoted. Seems reasonable to me even if I don't agree.

There was a massive scandal over UK complicity in US extraordinary rendition over here a few years ago.

The UK government was roundly condemned and the practice stopped (including refueling US rendition flights from elsewhere).

This will not happen to Assange.

They've kidnapped people from the streets of Milan, Italy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-operative-extradited-to-i...

"UK police say WikiLeaks' Assange will be arrested if he leaves Ecuador's embassy" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-bri...

So while we don't know yet about the US, the intention of the UK is clear.

Also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...

> When was the last time the US kidnapped someone from London's streets?

I don't think that they'd need to really. Much easier to have a quiet word with the co-operative British authorities who would assist with the matter and then hand over the individual in question. All soft language and avoidance of publicity, you see. But the same result.

...that we know of. The CIA and co have means of making people disappear.

If they do that, then it would just show that he was right all along. And I say that as someone who doesn't even like Assange.

We're in a chaotic political climate, it seems just as likely that a rival nation state would kill him to implicate the US and cause chaos, upset, and confusion.

He needs to face justice one way or another.

What is his crime? He isn't the one committing war crimes. He is exposing them.

Yet we continue to go after whistle blowers and journalist instead of the ones who committed these crimes against humanity.

Well he was accused of rape, or, more accurately, sexual assault by other countries' definitions. Those charges have now been dropped, for what I can only assume "a preponderance of the evidence suggesting the defendant is permanently insanity".

But he may have committed other crimes in his attempt to flee the rape charge (not sure if 'failure to appear' is a crime in the UK, that differs by jurisdiction).

None of all that has anything to do with Wikileaks, by the way. A person's good deeds in one domain don't make him immune to criminal charges for unrelated matters. The idea that two average Swedish women are somehow recruited by the CIA to smear him with (rather weak) rape accusations is rather preposterous.

You're right when you say that one person's good deed in one domain don't make him immune to criminal charges for unrelated matters. However, Assange did not just did a 'good deed', he became a very high value political target and most of the time such people are protected from unrelated charges, since it is very easy to false flag them/burden them with bs to keep them from doing their job. For example in France the president has partial immunity. The case of diplomatic immunity also comes to mind.

What makes it preposterous? You're thinking the real CIA would've at least sent Jason Bourne?

Rape

You mean he should get a compensation?

In a just world: Yes.

I suspect that he's spent longer in the Embassy than he would have in a Swedish prison if he'd been found guilty of the things he was accused of.

Or the UK secret service can do it. Wouldn't be the first time.

Out of interest, when was the last time the UK secret service did this?

In 1989 MI5 assisted loyalist paramilitaries in murdering Pat Finucane, human rights lawyer. Not exactly "kidnapped", but in many ways being shot 14 times, at point blank range, in front of your children at home, is pretty bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane

I think I get where you're coming from, but the two situations are really unlike each other. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

If he said, then it wouldn't be a secret.