Voices

Views from elsewhere

The real reason Julian Assange sought asylum

The WikiLeaks chief fears he could face the death penalty in the US for treason.

By Ryan Gallagher Published 20 June 2012 10:45

The embassy of Ecuador in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

The embassy of Ecuador in London where WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange is claiming political asylum. Photograph: Getty Images.

WikiLeaks is well-known for dropping surprises. But when the whistleblower organisation posted a tweet yesterday afternoon saying “stand by for an extraordinary announcement,” it is doubtful even one of its 1.5 million followers could have predicted what was coming.

Four hours and forty minutes later WikiLeaks dramatically announced that its editor-and-chief, Julian Assange, was at the Ecuadorian embassy in central London where he had made a request for political asylum. Ecuador’s foreign affairs ministry issued a confirmation, saying it was evaluating Assange’s request. Meanwhile it looked like the country’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño Aroca, had already made up his mind as he took to Twitter, posting a series appearing to back the 40-year-old Australian. “We are ready to defend principles, not narrow interests,” he wrote.

Why did Assange take such a drastic course of action? Last week Supreme Court judges ruled he would have to be extradited to Sweden to be questioned over sexual misconduct accusations made against him there in 2010. He has been fighting the extradition for more than eighteen months, principally because he believes that if he is sent to Sweden, he could be held incommunicado and then be ultimately handed over to authorities in the United States, where a Grand Jury is actively investigating him over WikiLeaks’ publication of classified US government documents.

In a statement, Assange said that he was in a “state of helplessness” and felt abandoned by the Australian government, who had failed to intervene in his case. He added that he had been attacked openly by top politicians in Sweden and feared he could eventually face the death penalty in the US for the crimes of treason and espionage.

The timing was unexpected, because the WikiLeaks founder still had the option of asking the European Court of Human Rights to hear an appeal. But in some ways seeking refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy was an obvious choice. Assange interviewed the country’s president, Rafael Correa, recently for his television show, and the two men had a rapport (“WikiLeaks has strengthened us,” Correa beamed). Ecuador previously offered Assange a safe haven in 2010, just a few months before it expelled the US ambassador following WikiLeaks revelations. (It is worth noting, however, the country is not exactly aligned with WikiLeaks ideologically: it has a record on free speech that Human Rights Watch says is the poorest in the region after Cuba.)

Assange will not have taken the decision to ask for asylum lightly. It is a huge step borne out of clear desperation, with massive ramifications to boot. For eighteen months he has been obediently adhering to strict bail conditions – subjected to a curfew forcing him to stay a registered address between the hours of 10pm and 7am, an electronic tag strapped around his ankle that can track his movements. Now Assange is in breach of those conditions and, as a result, the thousands of pounds supporters pledged to secure his release from jail in 2010 may be forfeited.

Police will be actively seeking his arrest – though are currently powerless to do so, as under the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations an embassy is considered “inviolable.” That means UK authorities are not allowed to enter “except with the consent of the head of the mission.” Assange should therefore be safe so long as he is within the confines of the embassy. If he tries to leave, however, he could find himself in trouble.

Historically, people who have sought refuge in embassies have met different fates. Dissident Chinese lawyer Chen Guangcheng recently fled to the US embassy in Beijing China and negotiated a quick and safe passage out of the country on a flight to New York. But others have not been so lucky. In 1956 a leader of the Hungarian uprising, wanted by Soviet authorities, took refuge at the US embassy in Budapest and ended up spending the next 15 years inside its compound, watched by police around the clock.

For Assange, a man haunted by fears of solitary confinement and a draconian US prosecution, 15 years inside an embassy compound may sound like a preferable option.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Julian Assange wikileaks

More from Ryan Gallagher

View the discussion thread.

55 comments

Fri, 2012-07-13 05:54 — thomas vesely

it is worth pointing out that sweden has the highest rape rate in europe.
could that have something to do with greatly expanded definitions ?
absurd definitions ?
in a hysterically P.C. country ?

Wed, 2012-09-05 10:35 — Pavlova

What absurd definitions?

Reports of rape are directly proportional to how easy it is to report rape. Lower rates of rape do not mean it happens less often, just that it gets reported less often.

Thu, 2012-08-16 19:01 — sven the troll (not verified)

it is worth pointing out that sweden has the highest rape rate in europe.
could that have something to do with greatly expanded definitions ?
absurd definitions ?

Er, no it is cos of all the Muslims they let in. Same reason why rape stats are through the roof in Belgium, and Norway and Holland. And Bradford. And Leeds. And well, everywhere else that let em in.

Mon, 2012-07-09 19:26 — ThorsteinGreville

I wonder if Julian has upset anyone enough, to put a willing girl in his bed, and then to cry rape. I have read that 95% of rape cases allegations are malicious. Her story might even be worth more if the girls PR firm advises her to say she was put up to it. I suspect the rights to the story are already being punted around the News agencies. http://www.squidoo.com/best-color-laser-printer-reviews

Wed, 2012-09-05 10:38 — Pavlova

"I have read that 95% of rape cases allegations are malicious"

Where on earth did you read this?

Malicious or false? If you'd bee raped, you'd probably feel pretty malicious.

The English police estimate that 4% of reports of rape are false, the same as for every other type of crime. The campaign to discredit accusers is just one more tool in the rapists' box.

Fri, 2012-06-29 06:52 — thewestisthebest (not verified)

The real reason Julian Assange sought asylum is he's guilty of all chargers?

Fri, 2012-06-29 13:38 — Demon123 (not verified)

He hasn't been charged with anything. He is just ordered to appear in front of a judge. Ignorant much.

Sun, 2012-08-19 02:24 — Iguana mom (not verified)

No, not even a judge, but to be questioned by the prosecutor.

There are more facts that further erode this case.

See Marcy Wheeler at her blog for this post titled: "The Assange Diplomatic Standoff Exposes Precisely the Same Side of US/UK as WikiLeaks Cables"

And in the comments at #12
"both accusers have requested the withdrawal of their complaints, continue to cooperate with Swedish authorities reluctantly, and have expressed regret for having brought this ...."

Sun, 2012-08-19 02:24 — Iguana mom (not verified)

No, not even a judge, but to be questioned by the prosecutor.

There are more facts that further erode this case.

See Marcy Wheeler at her blog for this post titled: "The Assange Diplomatic Standoff Exposes Precisely the Same Side of US/UK as WikiLeaks Cables"

Sun, 2012-08-19 02:24 — Iguana mom (not verified)

No, not even a judge, but to be questioned by the prosecutor.

There are more facts that further erode this case.

See Marcy Wheeler at her blog for this post titled: "The Assange Diplomatic Standoff Exposes Precisely the Same Side of US/UK as WikiLeaks Cables"

Tue, 2012-06-26 13:04 — toffer99 (not verified)

We can forget any thoughts of a death penalty arising from an official trial of Assange should he get to the United States.
It will be much simpler; he'll be killed. We'll be told that he slipped in the shower and cracked his skull, or was attacked by another prisoner while the guard's back was turned.
After all, this United States administration (as did the previous one) murders their own and other citizens in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen without a trial, killing innocents in the process.
If Assange enters the USA, he's dead.

Mon, 2012-07-23 11:59 — AAMVN (not verified)

Quite possible, but I think they most want him silenced and if possible discredited. Locked up for 4 years in Sweden would be enough to begin with. Then if wikileaks is still a threat they can have him extradited to the US (or just use rendition) and locked up in inhumane conditions for another 2-3 years awaiting 'trial'.

It frankly doesn't matter if he did or didn't commit the 'crimes' the Swedish prosecutors claim. They would have invented something (probably far worse) if this hadn't come up.

Tue, 2012-06-26 02:25 — peterpops (not verified)

If Julian is extradited from the Ecuador Embassy then it will be Ecuador that has to agree to him then being extradited to the USA, not the UK. As for the charges, Honey trap comes to mind. I wonder how much the girls story will be sold for. I wonder if Julian has upset anyone enough, to put a willing girl in his bed, and then to cry rape. I have read that 95% of rape cases allegations are malicious. Her story might even be worth more if the girls PR firm advises her to say she was put up to it. I suspect the rights to the story are already being punted around the News agencies.

Fri, 2012-06-22 10:45 — thomas vesely

julian is doing this so that you can always know what is being done by your government .do you deserve any less than that ?
they use this secrecy to loot and to hide their incompetence.

Fri, 2012-06-22 01:18 — Dr. Wom Bhatt (not verified)

Mr. Assange is a pathfinder. He has found a way to bypass the world's corralled news media and provide critical information to the world's people so that they can make decisions for themselves. That alone has "criminalised" him.

He is audacious and enterprising. He is also a canary for the rest of us. He is showing how toxic it is for those who wish to question and be critical about the prevailing world power matrix. National sovereignty is good as long as it doesn't conflict with the goals of the international power elite. In that case it is superseded. All bow to the owner of the "Big Stick", or else is the message.

Justice for all, is dependent , as MBRECKER implies, on the amount of money one has to pay the new "priests" of the temple, the lawyers and judges in the (in)Justice system. It seems to be a one sided contest given that the GovCo's of the world are aligned to and controlled by the Banking System ( which prints its own money whenever it needs it and then charges GovCo interest in the process). Assange is challenging this system. He deserves all our support.

After all we gave Henry Kissinger a Nobel Peace Prize after he was instrumental in promoting murder and mayhem in South East Asia, Chile and other spots too numerous to mention. His company went on to provide more "great" service through Paul Bremmer (then CEO, Kissinger & Associates) in Iraq. And I do believe there are international arrest warrants out for Henry that are awaiting execution. ( Thank you for your vigour Christopher Hitchens R.I.P ). I don't see the U.S.A.(inc) hurrying to see Justice served there.

So maybe , in sheer practical terms, in order to see Justice served we should consider those on the International Justice waiting list not just those on the U.S.A. inc waiting list. . Let's work through them in order of priority.....Henry K, Tony Blair, George W, John Howard, David Cameron, Barack Obama, Julia Gillard, Angela Merkel, Financial Technocrats running national governments, Executives of Drug companies etc etc, Suppressors of new technology etc etc.

Let's not spend too many resources on Julian where there are so many more worthwhile candidates for the serving of justice. Long live the canary.

A question hangs in the air though. What has been going on around the world that we haven't heard about whilst this farce has been going on ? I haven't seen any new clarions of transparency popping up in the meantime.

Thu, 2012-06-21 23:34 — FreedemocratNew statesman (not verified)

Those who claim to believe that Julian Assange would not be openly or covertly extradicted to the USA if he returned to Sweden, and would not face a prejudicial judicial process and unjust outcome, should ask themselves whether they would decline political asylum if offered, in his circumstances.

Thu, 2012-06-21 23:27 — FreedemocratNew statesman (not verified)

Mr Gallager is mistaken in his claim that Julian Assange has broken his bail conditions. Mr Assange is in a clearly identifiable building for the required duration of hours per day and the address can be registered for bail purposes.

Fri, 2012-06-22 00:01 — Jim545 (not verified)

No, it's *you* that's mistaken. He has to stay at his single registered address and his breached his conditions: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jh_1XFugu7SjEpHu-...

Thu, 2012-06-21 23:27 — FreedemocratNew statesman (not verified)

Thu, 2012-06-21 18:11 — Dorina Lisson (ACADP) (not verified)

The world media is playing everyone for fools over the Assange.
Fact is; No abolitionist country will extradite a person (regardless of crime) to the USA if there is the slightest chance of the person being sentenced to death. Under every abolitionist country's extradition act, a person cannot be deported to a retentionist country to face prosecution on a capital charge without a prior written guarantee that the person will not be sentenced to death. Before deportation, there must be an assurance the death penalty will not be imposed. The extradition laws reflect abolitionist countries bipartisan opposition to the death penalty.

Sat, 2012-06-23 23:09 — thomas vesely

the rendition program found plenty of countries willing to suspend the legalities............
to rely on justice is naive.

Thu, 2012-06-21 16:58 — Ken Baldry (not verified)

How can the US charge him with treason? He's an Australian citizen.

Sat, 2012-06-30 11:48 — thomas vesely

we the Australians are owned by the USA.
they are about to station troops here.
our own government has become an accomplice
to the drone cowboy.

Wed, 2012-06-27 07:33 — Graham Varney (not verified)

How could the UK arrest him in the first place? He's an Australian citizen.

It's between Sweden and Australia. That make ALL UK legal stuff illegal and invalid and puts bail sureties out as fraud..

Assange should have a case for multimillion pound damages against the UK, as well as A$ claims against Australia for not detaining him at Australia House, London in the 1st instance.

Fri, 2012-06-22 10:41 — arms control poseur (not verified)

It's nonsense to say he could be charged with treason in the US as 5 minutes research would reveal.

Treason is defined in chapter 18 of the US Criminal Code : 'whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death'

Since he doesn't 'owe allegiance' to the US he can't be charged with treason there (although there are a number of other things he could be charged with, none of them are capital offences)

Fri, 2012-06-22 12:33 — Spoba24 (not verified)

Treason
Enemy combatant
Terrorist assistant
Whatever
They will find a law to kill him or invent one.
Does any one doubt that?

Fri, 2012-06-22 14:48 — arms control poseur (not verified)

Yes, I do doubt it. I'm no apologist for the US and acknowledge that they they have behaved murderously towards many people throughout the world are still doing so. However, my point is that (contrary to what his apologists would like you think) there is no legal judicical route by which they could execute hima and Assange's very celebrity means it is inconceivable that the US would 'kill' him extra-judicially.

Fri, 2012-06-22 00:07 — Jim545 (not verified)

Treason is actually pretty narrowly defined under the US constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. " See: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2010/08/over...

Thu, 2012-06-21 14:45 — Gideon Polya

World hero Julian Assange has very good reasons to fear torture and death at the hands of the Americans. Indeed leading neocon Americans have called for extrajudicial murder of Assange. The cowardly, unprincipled, racist, pro-war, pro-Zionist Australian Labor Government is a slavish lackey of the US and offers a dishonest choice of words over the Assange affair, stating that they have not been “advised” by the US Government about any US legal action against Assange. However the ABC (the Australian equivalent of the UK BBC) recently broadcast a program about the ongoing US torture of US whistleblower Bradley Manning. This ABC Four Corners TV program identifies that “This Washington courthouse is where, it's believed, a Grand Jury has been sitting in secret, preparing a sealed indictment against Julian Assange, which will allow his extradition to America, and a trial for espionage. Australia's Government refuses to confirm this” and reveals an “email, from [US Government-linked company] Stratfor's Vice-President Fred Burton, [which] says: "Not for publication - We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Please protect.” (ABC TV Four Corners, “Wikileaks – the forgotten man”, 18 June 2012: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/06/14/3525291.htm ).

Assange had good reasons to seek asylum in the Ecuador Embassy. The US has a long history of interference in Ecuador, backing right-wing terror groups bombing Catholic Churches (so that socialists would be blamed; see Phillip Agee's book “Inside the Company. CIA Diary”), suborning leading Ecuador politicians and union officials, threatening Ecuador governments, very likely killing Ecuador President Jaime Roldós Aguilera in 1981 when he refused to play ball (by air crash, just as they later murdered Panamanian President Omar Torrijos 2 months later) and interfering in the revolution of 2000 (for some of the Awful Truth see "Wikileaks Julian Assange’s asylum bid & US subversion & perversion of Ecuador", Bellaciao, 21 June 2012: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article22003 ).

Hopefully Ecuador will grant Julian Assange diplomatic asylum and British embarrassment in view of the impending Olympic Games will ensure Julian Assange's safe departure for Ecuador. The Neocon American and Zionist (NAZI)-beholden US has already renditioned and tortured 2 Australians (Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks) with Australian Government complicity - Australians will not tolerate even the threat of such treatment of Australian hero Julian Assange.

Sat, 2012-06-23 21:47 — thomas vesely

"Australians will not tolerate even the threat of such treatment of Australian hero Julian Assange."
they have gotten quite good at tolerating lately.
even the deployment of USA troops on our land raised no opposition.
too busy watching "renovated fat chefs singing".

Thu, 2012-06-21 11:16 — Ciaran Goggins

One doubts that American would make a martyr of Assange by killing him, far more likely a living death of 40 years in a state pen.

Fri, 2012-06-22 10:07 — thomas vesely

after dismantling wikileaks funding, via blockade of normal banking services.
and a character assassinationm courtesy of sweden.

Thu, 2012-06-21 07:20 — writerman (not verified)

Julian Assange has not been charged with rape in Sweden. So there are no "charges" he is forced to go back and "face." Those are facts, not my opinions.

Assange is merely wanted for questioning in relation to certain alligations about sexual misconduct that under Swedish law, not UK law, might amount to "rape." So it's odd. The Swedish authorities, the prosecutor, believe Assange's actions merit the issuing of a European Arrrest Warrant to bring him back for questioning, yet they don't believe they have enough evidence, or proof that his actions were criminal, to issue formal charges for "rape." What could Assange possibly say, during an interview, acting under the advice of his lawyers, that would alter the situation? Do the Swedes think they can conjure non-existant evidence and non-existant witnesses out of thin air, and charge him with a crime, something they haven't been willing, or able, to to so far?

Lastly, the two women involved have not claimed that Assange raped them, that is, that he used violence to force them into having sex with them. The sex, according to them, was consensual. The accusations of "rape" stem from the police, the prosecutor, and the women's lawyer.

And how on earth does one prove which version of events during sex, in the privacy of the bedroom, between two people, are the most accurate, or who is telling the truth when there's disagreement about events?

Given the obvious weakness of the prosecutor's case, yet the extraordinary lengths they are going to in order to bring Assange back to Sweden, merely for questioning, it's no wonder Assange is "paranoid" about what he perceives is the real reason the Swedes want him back. He thinks they are going to find a way to hand him over to the Americans to stand trial for espionage and possibly a death sentence, so why take the risk? I know I would trust US justice in a political trial if I was Assange.

Thu, 2012-06-21 09:42 — David Boothroyd

This is the standard pro-Assange rubbish. The Swedish procedure is that no-one can be charged until they have been interviewed by police, and the interview can only take place in Sweden, so the fact that he has not been charged is true but irrelevant. He could not have been charged because he left Sweden.

But it is absolutely clear that the offences for which he is wanted for questioning are offences in English law, and one of them would be rape. The High Court judgment (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf) says so in para 61.

The only reason the Swedish prosecutor is going to "extraordinary lengths" are the extraordinary lengths to which Julian Assange is going to avoid facing justice in Sweden.

Fri, 2012-06-22 00:27 — Jim545 (not verified)

More info on how interview can take place OUTSIDE Sweden or by telephone:

"It has always been open to Sweden to request that Mr. Assange be interviewed in the UK by virtue of the arrangements for Mutual Legal Assistance (“MLA”) between Sweden and the UK, in particular the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (2000, C197/01) and Protocol (2001/C326/01)to which all EU member states are parties. These instruments, and the second additional protocol to the European Convention of 1959, make arrangements,for example, whereby a witness in one country may give evidence in proceedings in another by means of video or telephone link."

From page 19 of this legal doc: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48330661/Assange-Draft-Skeleton-Argument

Fri, 2012-06-22 11:19 — David Boothroyd

Citing the outline case submitted by Julian Assange's lawyers when they have lost the case is perhaps not the most conclusive way of establishing your case. Even if it was true, what you have produced only says that under European treaties it is open to Sweden to allow its police to question suspects outside the jurisdiction. That is not the issue. The issue is that Swedish law at present says that they can't. Even if they could, it's not unreasonable for the Swedish police to take the view that with this particular suspect (given his nomadic lifestyle and the now undeniable fact that he is a flight risk), they would want to have him within their jurisdiction.

Fri, 2012-06-22 14:11 — jim454 (not verified)

I strongly suggest you have a read of the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2000:197:0001...

Sweden is signed up to that convention, which means there is no legal restriction on them questioning Assange outside of Sweden -- for example, in an embassy or even by Skype. So it is quite simply wrong to try and assert that "Swedish law at present says that they can't."

If all the Swedes are wanting to do is question Assange, then why have they not done so at their London embassy over the last 18 months? And then, once they had questioned him, charge him if there are charges to be made, don't charge him if not. It's really quite simple.

You've got to see it from Assange's perspective. He is suspicious about why they have refused the opportunity to question him at their embassy or by Skype, and he is concerned that he has been told he will be placed immediately in detention when he arrives. It's hard to blame him for fearing the worst.

Fri, 2012-06-22 00:20 — Jim545 (not verified)

"the interview can only take place in Sweden"

That is totally untrue. There is nothing stopping the interview taking place either in the Swedish embassy in London or by video link - both of which Assange has offered to the prosecutors, and they have declined... which has only added to his suspicion that they want to have him banged up in a cell and held for weeks/months without charge.

Thu, 2012-06-21 04:03 — Joey Watts (not verified)

That makes a lot of sense dud.e WOw.

www.Anon-Surfin.tk

Thu, 2012-06-21 03:05 — Paul J (not verified)

Assange was trying to get Swedish residency before he was charged with sex crimes. Claiming this is a set-up to get him sent to America is the profoundest bollocks.

He doesn't want to go to jail for rape. That's it. Everything else is camouflage.

Wed, 2012-06-20 18:50 — all names taken (not verified)

When I needed a neighbour
Were you there, were you there?
When I needed a neighbour
Were you Ecuador?
And the creed and the colour
And the ISP won't matter
Were you there?

Wed, 2012-06-20 16:23 — mbrecker (not verified)

Let's consider Assange's options at this point:

One final appeal to te European Court of Human Rights? Not likely to overturn his extradition order.
While his asylum request is being processed, the Ecuadorians are giving him sanctuary. The UK govt. can try to force them to hand Assange over. The embassy in turn can say this is sovereign terrority. You can't do that.
The standoff potentially drags on, and Assange tries to spin this to his advantage. The talk show lead-ins: is he a refugee or not?
Will millions march in the streets every day and blockade the embassy to show support? No. Why? Because not losing your job or being homeless comes first.
Will there be a UK celeb committee to fight for Assange? Aside from Pilger, what happened to the rest of them?
If he's sent to Sweden and then to the States, will millions there contribute to his legal defense and march every day to show support? No. Again, same thing.
His RT show was a short-term deal. If the UK govt. and others press hard for Assange's arrest and deportation, will RT risk being dragged into a long-term legal battle? I seriously doubt it.

The other point is this. If the worst happens and he's in the embassy for years, how will he pay off his legal bills? He's done the RT show. He's wrote a book that had problems. He did a Simpson's gust shot. He tried to trademark his name, with no luck. If you were his attorney, would you wait for potentially years to get paid?

Fri, 2012-06-22 10:15 — thomas vesely

"If you were his attorney, would you wait for potentially years to get paid?"
a lot of his legal support is acting in a " pro bono" manner.
fees waived, issue more important.
before visa etc were pressured to cut his funding channels he had ample operating
revenues.

Wed, 2012-06-20 14:45 — Head shaker (not verified)

Rubbish.

Sweden cannot send Assange to the US without breaching Article 28 of the EU's arrest warrant framework. Furthermore, for Sweden to send Assange to the US they would need the permission of the British Government under section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003 - the Swedes have to agree to abide by this before their extradition of Assange to Sweden can go ahead.

Assange is simply playing his ongoing game of trying to avoid facing the Swedish justice system. So far we have had stripping the anonymity away from his alleged victims and doing soem very nasty hatchet jobs on them (something that I would have expected TNS to deplore), followed by the celebrity ensorsment game, now this. And still there are people who are convinced that this is all some US plot.

Sad. Very sad.

Thu, 2012-06-21 13:47 — Andybbn (not verified)

What makes you think the UK wouldn't grant permission? The UK never shies away from extraditing its own citizens to the US, so why would they care for an Australian who has caused the UK serious embarassment.

Thu, 2012-06-21 00:03 — studiostu (not verified)

I'm afraid you are very naive. This whole saga heaps great shame on our country, and the west in general.

Thu, 2012-06-21 22:18 — Paul J (not verified)

It's you who's naive.
The whole saga shows rather how shamelessly certain parts of the left, (and I say this as an un-apologetic lefty) are willing to suspend their criticial faculties when it comes to "heroic" anti-Americans.

Wikileaks was a brilliant idea. Julian Assange, though, is a different matter.

Fri, 2012-07-13 05:40 — thomas vesely

" Julian Assange, though, is a different matter."
why ?
wouldn't be cause he gets laid ?
wouldn't be cause he is braver than you ?
be fair.....

Wed, 2012-06-20 23:31 — Silican (not verified)

If, following police interviews, the Swedish prosecutor decides against proceeding any further, then neither sections 58 nor 28 will be relevant and Assange's extradition to the US would become a matter for the Swedes alone.

Wed, 2012-06-20 13:05 — David Boothroyd

It's ludicrous to believe that extradition to Sweden would make it more likely that Julian Assange will eventually end up in the USA. The UK's extradition arrangements with the USA are notably trusting; Sweden's are not. It's difficult to imagine the UK authorities obstructing a US request for Julian Assange; it's quite easy to imagine Swedish authorities doing so. And in any case, under international law if a person has previously been extradited from one country to another and is desired by a third, both the other countries must agree.

The Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK, incidentally, is not a large place. I don't imagine the staff are pleased at being dragged into a diplomatic incident which is none of their making.