|
As far as I can see, the Swedes were not pressing for Assange's extradition until the wikileaks release; immediately after it, they began to do so.
Now, it's by no means impossible that this is a coincidence*, but the timing is such to at least raise questions.
Now, I don't know whether a) Assange is guilty or innocent (I have nothing but contempt for those who've been blackening the names of his accusers and assuming he didn't do it without full knowledge of the facts) or b) what evidence the Swedes have to that effect.
But the timing is such as to make it look not unlikely that the wikileaks release was a factor in their decision to press for extradition.
And if that was the case, then even if he's as guilty as sin and they have proof positive of that, or even if he's completely innocent and they don't have a shred of evidence, or anything in between, they've been doing *something* wrong - not proceding when they should have or proceding when they shouldn't are both bad, as is allowing a political concern to influence decision making.
*This disclaimer is not just empty words - I genuinely think it's not all *that* unlikely that the prosecutors did just change their minds for other reasons.
|