How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.
You could argue the opposite side: how many embassies offer protection to famous rape suspects?
This is not an ordinary occurrence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_cas...
Which is why I wrote: This is not an ordinary occurrence meaning that it happens rarely, not that such things never happen.
The only reasons you would want a suspect extradited to your country are: to press charges and make an arrest, to torture, to make a media scene, or to 'punish' someone by detaining them even though you can't make the case stick.
The only acceptable reason is the first one, in which case you should press charges before extradition.
At this point in the US he'd probably be charged with obstruction of justice, at which point venue is again no longer up to him.
In the US there's the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
Even if you know nothing of the law, surely you've at least seen a television show or movie where someone says "Am I being charged with a crime? ... Then am I free to go?"
That's all you need to say.
Assange has a perfectly justified fear that the request for interview functions as a strategy for entrapping & extraditing him. The notion that this is nothing more than a disinterested preference in procedure is implausible.
This is true in the US. It's not quite true here in Australia - a refusal to talk to police can be used against you in a court of law. It's not going to make or break a case, but you can't just 'plead the 5th' here and have no consequences. I imagine it's similar in the UK as our law is quite similar to theirs.
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
The whole point of asylum is to protect against persecution, which is usually justified in the home country under some law.
There is no evidence that he is being persecuted by the US in this matter: if Ecuador has some they should publish it.
Actually they have. Enough was presented to the Ecuadorian Government that they agreed he faced potential political prosecution. That's why he's been granted asylum.
> Sweden issued a legitimate European Arrest Warrant, and the UK allowed Assange to appeal that to the highest court.
Sweden issued an extremely unusual arrest warrant, and in the highest UK legal circles there is an opinion that the final Supreme court decision was simply wrong:
"The Supreme Court wrongly, and without any analysis, assumed that VCLT Article 31(3)(b) is applicable in the interpretation of secondary European acts such as the Framework Decision. It also neglected to look into the interpretative rules of the EU. The result was a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court." [1]
Assange is a Western dissident. You don't have to like him or agree with WikiLeaks mission, but the actions against WikiLeaks have been highly political, and manouverings by Sweden, the UK, and the US in line with the actions of any states acting against dissidents through various channels.
[1] http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&vi...
For the suspicious mind, it could be seen that a disinclination to examine in full the very matter presented for examination, is indicative of at worst, bias, and at worst, as argued in the citation, error. Any further avenue of appeal in the UK has been refused.
I also find it ironic that British courts are willing to refuse extradition requests for terrorism suspects, say to Jordan, when an ambiguity regarding their immunity from torture or death arises, but will apparently allow it in other cases.
It could just be that he had bail terms set and broke them and the Swedes want a chat about those pesky rape allegations. Don't invent something where it doesn't exist.
The Swedish Police officially wants him for questioning, and for that reason they requested his arrest through Interpol. The UK legal system only argued on whether there's any impediment, under British Law, which would not allow him to be extradited.
Under pressure from the current government, Lord Justices ruled that they cannot find anything of the sort. Hardly a trial or "going through the entire legal system".
And I did not say he had. Your entire comment is based on a false premise (that I believed that he had been convicted) that you have invented.
But who cares, he's just a man. The problem here is the sanctity of the asylum principle, which is not worth losing over such a petty dispute.
As a result the fact he's not been convicted is potentially somewhat misleading as he's made it impossible to do so up to this point.
And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him?
> And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him?
I can see your point here, but after some time I would think that it would become difficult to continue with the case. Witnesses get hard to track down, evidence lost, etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...
"Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity."
I would consider that to be rape, but I have no idea whether the US in general or legally would agree.
"In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange"
Link in the cousin comment.
In the morning, she woke up to Assange on top of her having sex with her. She asked if he had obtained a condom and he said no. She told him to get off, and, well, he got off, but not in the way she meant--he kept going, came, and then withdrew.
That would arguably be rape in the US.