Justice systems are allergic to public disrespect. That alone can completely explain the behavior of the police in Sweden and the UK.
Assange is a self-importent prick, cowardly on the run from pretty serious allegations. He exploits his involvement with Wikileaks to sow doubt. I really think it's as simple as that.
- Sweden issued police alerts more befitting of an international terrorist suspect
- Assange was hit by these charges coincidentally just at the the time when he'd provoked the wrath of the US
- the charge they'd managed to conjure up is one for which there can be basically no exhonerating witnesses and no physical evidence, so they simply 'must' question him in person
- the supposed victims were tweeting about how excited they were to be with Assange seemingly after the alleged crime and also did not report it until later as if they were prompted by some other motivation
I'd put the odds of this being a legitimate criminal case at something like 0.0000034%
Just one thing. no country will promise not to extradite someone. They can't. It's just not possible to promise something like that. How is that supposed to work? If (hypothetically) the US were to request Assange's extradition and if they had (hypothetically) evidence and valid reasons for doing so, Sweden would have to break their treaty.
Why do you believe it's possible to promise something like that? That's crazy.
However, the allegation of the charge being 'conjured up' would require that both the UK and Swedish judicial systems be severely compromised. That would be an extraordinary conspiracy, so the claim requires extraordinary evidence. The four points mentioned simply don't meet that standard in my opinion.
Think about this from the start: Assange has just become an enemy of the US due to wikileaks dumping a lot of official documents onto the Internet. Knowing this, Assange would be extra careful not to do anything that could lead to his arrest by a America-comliant government. Next thing we know, he's being accused of the one crime for which there can be almost by definition no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence, no signs of physical harm on the victim. What are the odds? And remember, they haven't even pressed the charges (that way they can deny the judicial system was actually compromised), this is just an excuse to get him into custody so he can then be officially extradited to the US.
But why is that completely out of the question?
I also think he's right to be afraid. The two pieces of evidence that make me fill that way are, first, that the prosecutor that wants the questioning is not the prosecutor that spoke with the women and, second, they won't question him anywhere but Sweden, even though Sweden has done remote interviews in the past. Couple this with one of the accusers refusing to sign her statement and it gets very fishy.
This is so ridiculously absurd and easily rebutted by there just being one account of him not being a "scumbag" that I wonder why you would even bother typing such a transparent ad hominem in the first place.
For some definitions of "politically motivated," you would have contradicted yourself.
We all know what was meant with politically motivated in the comment I was responding to. Don't be a pedantic ass when I was perfectly understandable.
That's why comments like yours are pedantic self-importance that only want to derail the discussion.
I see that you've retreated with that "and nothing else" part though, admitting that it is, in fact, a factor.
The British justice system is motivated to get him because he is behaving like a prick in public and managed to escape them. That's all. Not really politically motivated at all.
I believe the distinction you are trying to draw lacks a difference. You may consider that pedantry, but being able to communicate precisely what you mean is important, particularly on a story like this where tensions run high.