Heck of a lot of flaws in that lot, it is almost a defence lawyers dream.
No charges, then for me just let the embassy of Ecuador arrange his flights to Ecuador and that's that.

Rape is a serious issue, however if it is still just allegations and not charges,why are we even bothering to entertain Sweden on this.
Especially if Sweden will not also guarantee 100% that they will not allow him to be handed over to the the USA.
Maybe he has a very valid point as to that.

If someone is suspected of having committed a crime in a country and then flits of to another to avoid criminal proceedings, then if an extradition treaty exists, the country where the crime was committed can ask for that person to be returned so that the crime can be investigated and charges brought if proof exists, followed by the usual court case.

I don't understand how this can be so hard to follow?

The UK just recently applied for the person suspected of murdering the eastenders actress and her family to be extradited. Should we just have said, oh that's fine if he had entered the Ecuadorian embassy there? I think not.

We have strict legal rules on what conditions need to be met for someone to be extradited to another country, those conditions were met by Sweden. This has nothing to do with America. This is between Sweden and the UK and relates purely to the context in Sweden. Everything else is just pure obfuscation.

Also, if the UK are such lap dogs to the Americans, and they wanted him extradited to face charges there, why didn't they apply to the UK directly for extradition? The arguments in this regard are tenuous at best.

The investigation was dropped to sex molestation and coercion in 2015. Both women have since claimed they had never considered it rape and had reported coercion to have sex without a condom and both women were later concerned about catching an STD. Its been reported that both women are very upset about the trouble they have caused Assange but regardless of that, the rape charge won't be dropped until 2020.

Assange has repeatedly said that he would happily be investigated on the rape charge but because he fears the Swedish authorities would extradite him to America on a charge of espionage or conspiracy, he won't return to Sweden. Sweden will make no promise of protection.

The case of espionage or conspiracy is a tricky one because he's merely the publisher who was handed all these documents. Whether America could make a genuine case against Assange is questionable.

But all that is just obfuscation. The UK granted the extradition that Sweden applied for, and until Sweden withdraw their extradition request, the UK is duty bound to use its best efforts to return him to Sweden. Again I say, the UK has done nothing wrong.

..I reckon the Manitowoc County police department and Wisconsin judicial system could make one ...their forensics also keep spare DNA etc for if it's ever needed to pop here and there...(probably not a great joke that, oooops..)...

:joker:

I don't think the UK have done anything wrong either but why does Sweden appear so intent on extraditing him to the US?

Good post.
That is the bit that makes me of the view that we should not honour extradition then.
If Sweden gives a full detailed guarantee of protection against him 'ever' being sent to the USA after their dealings with him as to this issue.
Then fair enough.

The fact they will not give their guarantee leans me more to believe more is in play here than just the rape allegation investigation.
So in the absence of that guarantee from Sweden, just allow him to be taken to Ecuador and that is down to Sweden failing to give expected assurances on issues and nothing to do with us not fulfilling our obligations as to international justice.

Why should anyone guarantee that Assange will not face charges in the US?

Too much time and money has been wasted on this man. Sent him straight to the US to explain himself, particularly to the families of the people he placed in danger. I wonder why no one seems to be at all worried about their rights.

If Assange is to be put on trial for espionage, then the news outlets who financially supported Wikileaks with production costs and directed its readers to the Wikileaks website on the very day information was being released should also be on trial. That includes, The New York Times, the Guardian and a German newspaper called, Der Spiegel.

I don't have a problem with that.

At the end of the day, the guy knows that he broke the law in at least 1 or more of his actions in 1 or more countries. If he wasn't such a criminal, he wouldn't be wanted by so many countries. He knew the issues he would face from his deeds, all he is now is a fugitive on the run. At some point his luck will run out and he will have to answer for his actions

So in your book time and money overrides fairness? Who would have thought it? Time and money should have no relevance whatsoever when it comes to right and wrong :shrug: As has being explained he has not being charged with committing any crime and the allegations made in sweden he has already being questioned for in sweden and it was decided by the prosecutor there was no wrong doing it was only after the wikileaks releases that the allegations were resurrected by the swedish authorities against the wishes of the women involved.
You claimed earlier to know all about the charges :joker: There have been no charges made.
Come on Livia whatever your motives you seem to be blind to common sense on this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assang...tion_Authority There are a few facts here but also a lot missing when it comes to the pressure applied by the U.S. to get him to Sweden.