UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

If he IS guilty, and knows that this isn't politically motivated, then why doesn't he go back to Sweden?

The worst possible sentence he is likely to get under Swedish law is so short that he'd likely have been out by now, after serving in a low security prison of a standard better than many British hotel rooms.

If he ISN'T guilty, then he has every reason to be concerned over the bizarre situations surrounding this case, such as why one prosecutor dismissed the case as obviously nothing criminal, only for another prosecutor with a known history for being aggressive about these types of cases to jump in an pick it up in a pretty unheard of move, and with the long list of other irregularities in the case, combined with Marianne Ny (the prosecutor)'s long standing refusal to consider interviewing him in London - a move that is pretty shocking given how they continue to expend resources in this case and insist it is so serious.

It is quite possible that the US has nothing to do with it, but something is fishy in the way the Swedish prosecution is handling this. Maybe it's not a US desire to extradite him, but "just" a prosecutor out to make her name with a politically motivated case where the target is Swedish rape law, not Assange - if it is he'd surely be a perfect target. But if I was him and I was innocent, I'd resist extradition too.

Of course, it is possible he's guilty but at the same time paranoid about the US - just pointing out that it is not a given that staying away from Sweden in these circumstances imply guilt. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons for someone to be more wary about going back if not guilty in this case.

> As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'

Law enforcement frequently opt to interview suspects in situations less than ideal when the choice is to not be able to interview them at all, or to have the interviews delayed.

Consider that if there is a case to answer - something that is not clear, as no charges have been filed (Assange is wanted for arrest for questioning on suspicion, not charged; the distinction keeps confusing British media, who is not used to the Scandinavian justice systems) -, then every day that goes makes any testimony that is collected less likely to be considered reliable by the court, and it is also clearly not in the interest of the alleged victims either to have the situation drag on without knowing whether or not the case will move forward.

This is also, despite the protestations of the Swedish prosecutor, commonly the case in Sweden. As many has pointed out, Sweden recently sent people to Poland to interview two people arrested on suspicion of a brutal double homicide, prior to an extradition hearing in Poland under an EAW.

Yet somehow they keep claiming they couldn't possibly do this in the Assange case, even going so far as to claim that Swedish law and court procedures won't allow it. This is another one of those things that makes the Assange case stink a long way, whether the US is involved in any way or not.

> The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?

How easy is it? McKinnon has been able to avoid extradition for 10 years now, despite a pretty clear cut case of hacking that is clearly illegal in both countries. As it turns out, while UK judges will honour UK obligations, they are also highly scrupulous about ensuring all arguments are heard, and the UK government seems unwilling to try an end-run around the legal process.

Meanwhile, Sweden has been censured by the UN for participating in rendition of at least two people in blatant violation of not only internatonal obligatons, but also of Swedish law.

That's some good propaganda there. BTW, I don't know if it's healthy to fantasize about punching people just based on how they look.

I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here:

http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the...

Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism at conference, in the workplace, etc etc come along and then take the sort of attitudes we see here.

Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.

Maybe, just maybe this is a big fit up from people 'out to get' Assange. But you also have to concede that both the simplest explanation, and one not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations. They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.

Most people accused of what Assange does do not have the luxury of fleeing to a foreign embassy. I don't see why it is so controversial that Assange should go and face these allegations. Supporters of Assange really can't have their cake and eat it.

If it's propaganda then explain the reality of it, don't just claim victory through superior hidden knowledge and wander off.

In regards to your second point, I deal with smug bastards on a day to day basis. Smug isn't so much about how someone looks as it is about how they look at you.

Sexual assualt charges have ludicrously low conviction rates (rapes especially), they are usually a he said, she said affair unless there's a significant degree of violence. Going down a peso route would be a lot easier, lower burden of proof... And evidence that can be fabricated without bringing a victim or witness to court.

Secondly, if the us wanted assagne they'd have him, shifting to Ecuador is probably a lot less safe than hanging around an EU country IMO

Thirdly, he had his chance to go back to Sweden, he ran. He had his chance in the uk, he ran. He's not showing him self to be of good character if the acts of abuse of process he claims to stand against are being carried out by himself

Guilty or not, he's got questions to ask. Running away isn't going to make his issues disappear

And lets not forget, sexual assault is a serious allegation, and if you had any sense about you, someone lying about using protection would really piss you off. Apart from the fact it means putting a woman at risk of having to look after a brat for 18 years plus incubation, there's also the risk of disease, complication through pregnancy and common flipping curtosey.