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.
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.
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.
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 ..
- "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.
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).