To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.
Assange is not responsible for deliberately skipping bail?
I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.
I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them.
People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been arbitrarily detained [0]. The judge could have factored that in, she did not, probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police operation and pandering to US relations.
>I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them.
So? It's only to be expected that more money will be spent on enforcing the law when it's being flagrantly violated in the public eye.
I think in reality you object to any attempt to hold Assange to account for skipping bail, and you'd be no happier if only, say, £10,000 had been spent in attempting to do so. If you don't object to the law being enforced, I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent. It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking.
The UN finding was daft, as Assange was not detained at all, and hence obviously not arbitrarily detained. If you look into that in more detail, you'll find a dissenting view by one member of the relevant panel - presumably the only person with his or her head screwed on:
> The finding in Assange’s case is a surprising one. As a dissent by the working group’s Ukrainian member, Vladimir Tochilovsky, points out, there is a thin basis upon which to argue that Assange is detained in the Ecuadorean embassy. “Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest,” Tochilovsky wrote. “Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention.”
> "I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent."
If you are UK taxpayer, you can.
> "It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking." It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.
Skipping bail is a serious offense. The criminal justice system would collapse if people were routinely able to skip bail without consequences. This point is especially pertinent when the person who skips bail is in the public eye and everyone can see him getting away with it.
As a UK taxpayer myself, I'm happy to see the rule of law eventually prevail in this instance. It strikes me as stingy and short-sighted to value that outcome at less than a few million pounds.
> It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.
Not really. I'd use the Madeline McCann case as a comparison. Millions of pounds of public money were spent looking for one missing girl who was (sadly) quite unlikely to be alive. You can question whether that's money well spent. But it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain why large amounts of money sometimes get spent investigating cases that are extensively covered in the news.
I will note that the "secret arrest warrant" (grand jury indictment) appears to have only existed for a little over a year; there is currently no evidence that one existed for the majority of Assange's residence in the embassy.