EDIT: Awesome! Downvoted with no comment!
Thanks!
"Questioning by police" is an enormous understatement. If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested, extradited to the US, and likely convicted of treason. His fate would at best look something like Chelsea Manning's, and at worst, execution.
Almost certainly not. The Constitutional definition of treason in the US is such that it is pretty much never charged, outside of TV shows and movies.
The charges usually discussed in the context of the ongoing US criminal investigation of Assange are violations of the Espionage Act, violations of the CFAA, theft/conversion of US government property, and conspiracy.
OTOH, the government that has actually requested his extradition is Sweden, and not for anything related to national security matters.
As others have pointed out, very unlikely he could be done for treason given he isn't American. But let's not let facts get in the way of some good down voting.
Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? The UK would be much more likely to do as the USA pleases than Sweden.
There is a publicly disclosed criminal investigation, and several years ago there were reports based on a non-detailed reference in an email in the Stratfor leak (which didn't come from anyone who would have firsthand knowledge) that there was a sealed indictment produced from that investigation, which the Justice Department has flatly denied.
So, apparently not.
> Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK?
If there were charges, there probably would be an extradition request.
I'm not sure why you think this would be a problem; the regular criminal justice system has processes for handling classified evidence and is the regular venue for people accused of espionage.
> I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process)
The cases challenging detentions under the Bush Administration pretty clearly established that "unlawful enemy combatant" designation comes with its own due process protections (lawful enemy combatants are Prisoners of War, who have rather extensive legal protections.)
No charges against him levied by the US. No extradition warrant out for him by the US.
While one might criticize Pres. Obama for his lack of success in closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, I don't think there is any indication that the administration is actually adding detainees there (not that Assange would be the type of person who would have been detained there even when new detainees were being added.)
There is so much wrong with this, and I suspect you know this, so I am probably wasting my time replying.
>serious crime
I am not sure a he-said/she-said argument about whether someone used a condom is a "serious crime". It's a shitty thing to do obviously but a "serious crime" it is not. The chief public prosecutor even said "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." and three of the four allegations made against him have been dropped.
>that you wanted to evade
Suggesting he actually did the crime. There are only allegations, and coming from a place of questionable integrity.
Additionally, he's not evading any alleged sexual crime, he's evading being extradited and facing capital punishment for political reasons. The UN itself had said his detention was in violation of international law, and Sweden said to uphold the warrant anyway.
>serious crime
He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious?
>that you wanted to evade
The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. Also, it is gracious of him to permit them to call him over the phone for questioning. Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? In situations where the defendant is already incarcerated, on remand or perhaps in a military setting I can understand but a civilian? Why should an exception be made?
You aren't wasting your time replying, I am not aiming to troll or wind anyone up. I genuinely agree with my above statements and don't find them wrong, ill-conceived or flippant. It saddens me people down vote my comments just because they disagree with my conclusion.
>The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him.
This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so.
>Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? Why should an exception be made?
How many police interviews take place with someone who is under political asylum to be protected from the UNITED STATES for a very real fear of being put to death or tortured because someone is politically motivated to make it happen? How often do they have to interview someone who the UN has officially declared as being illegally and arbitrarily detained? These are all tremendously good reasons for an exception, and obviously Sweden finally agreed since they did go to him in the embassy as a last resort.
How often does Sweden try to extradite someone over or go through these lengths for an allegation (with no evidence) of sexual assault? Never. Why did they make the exception for Assange?
>He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious?
I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. The facts are that the alleged assaults were non-violent and the involved women that had consented to sex with him, just not the exact way in which sex was allegedly had. Not using a condom during sex when you said you would doesn't rank anywhere near murdering someone (a serious crime) in my opinion. It is not an allegation worth trying to fucking extradite someone for questioning who is currently being protected by asylum for political reasons.
A woman going to a police station and saying "he didn't use a condom when I told him to" should not be carte blanche for the nation of Sweden demanding someone be arrested and extradited from anywhere in the world. It is beyond ridiculous and transparently politically motivated and that you would argue otherwise is why you're downvoted.
Not so, and if I wanted I could say the same to yourself.
>This is simply not true.
OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking?
>political asylum
Remember - the charge against him currently is that of sexual assault. This isn't a political case, it's one for a crime. He sure wants it to be political as that will help him in his endeavours
>I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault.
I am going to stop this discussion here as I am totally dismayed by your attitude to the seriousness of the crime committed. I can't see anything more positive to come from this thread. I urge you to see this without any bias and put yourself in the shoes of the alleged victim.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/12/julian-assange...
>The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, may be questioned in London within days about alleged sexual offences after Ecuador indicated it had reached a bilateral deal with Sweden.
>Negotiations began in June this year between Ecuador’s acting foreign minister, Xavier Lasso, and the Swedish justice ministry’s international affairs chief, Anna-Carin Svensson.