Julian Assange

Agreed. The US only want him because of Wikileaks anyway. Nothing to do with other allegations/charges. And as for his role in Wikileaks – good for him, I say.

However, he is resisting extradition to Sweden on the grounds that he could then be extradited to the USA. I think Sweden would be highly resistant to that request because they wouldn't extradite to a country that uses the death penalty.

Only in some states though Annobel. Not sure how this affects things.

The US does also frequently hand down sentences of 200 or 300 years, so not a lot different from the death penalty (US prisons are pretty gruesome places). I have no idea about extradition agreements between the US and Sweden, but think he ought to be returned to Sweden to answer the sexual assault charges. I don't think the Brits should send a gun boat (as it were) into the Ecuadorean embassy. I suspect that Assange's presence there is as embarrassing and irritating to the ambassador as it is to the British judicial system and some sort of diplomatic agreement between all parties can be sorted out if there's the will to do so.

Like Annobel I think it highly unlikely that Sweden would consider extraditing Assange to the US.

Assange is the typical bully, all to willing to beat up everybody else and exploit women and expect them to take it as their due, but shouting and screaming 'unfair' when they are on the receiving end.

I remember reading that when he was challenged whether he would publish on Wikilkeaks information he had that could lead to the death of named individuals, I think this referred Iranians in contact with US agents, his reaction was a shrug a words to the effect that it was a risk the named individual took when they contacted the US.

He is a silly and vain man with an overwheening sense of his own importance. I think we should just leave him with the Ecuadoreans but with the knowledge that the moment he steps out of the building the police will be waiting. Eventually it will drive him stir crazy to be confined in such a limited space or the Ecuadoreans will get so sick of him they will push him out of the building.

The UK Government shoud definitely NOT enter the Ecuadorean Embassy. If they do then it could be open season on all UK diplomats across the world. However, I do feel the Ecuadoreans are wrong to let him stay at the Embassy - as far as I am aware he has no connection with Ecuador and its not as if the UK or Sweden have a bad record when it comes to the treatment of accused people.

I think Assange has shown his true colours by letting down all the people who supported him and put up the bail money for him - I notice they are very quiet these days. He should surrender to the police and face his accusers in Sweden. If the US then try to extradite him from Sweden then he can fight that from there.

Assange offered to speak to Sweden here in the UK before all this happened but Sweden chose not to interview him, I believe he also made himself available to talk to the authorities there at the time of the "assaults" but they let him leave Sweden, so it's all a bit murky now and one wonders what sort of outcome will ensue.
I think he has a lot more Wikileaks waiting to be released if he is arrested and goes to Sweden.

I think Barrow is right. It's another well- established principle, like not being tried again on a charge you have been acquitted on and not being held for days (weeks, months) without ever coming to trial which could lead to the most horrendous outcomes if it is abandoned. Being a liberal parliamentary democracy doesn't make it OK to enact repressive, anti- democratic measures.

Embassies are sacrosanct. If we set a precedent and invade an embassy we may not be breaking international law but we will be breaking hundreds of understanding and agreement and putting every one of our embassies at threat. After all what's sauce for the goose.....

If the Americans want this man then they need to abide by international law. They're far to used to getting their own way and we act as their lackey far too often.

I agree with the comments so far but there is one point not mentioned. Am I correct, or not, in saying Britain has signed an International Extradition pact and we will be technically in breach of it if Assange is not handed over to Sweden in accordance with our British Courts instruction?

I agree, I too beleive it would be a disaster if we entered the Euadorian Embassy. Our government is certainly between a rock and a hard place. I think it is now so bad that this must be referrred to an International Court to make a decision and stop the potential massive problem this man has caused. He is sitting back laughing.!!!!! He has got exactly what he wants, more publicity. I would not be surprised if he refuses Assylum and walks out into the street to get arrested, he has been testing the water.

I think Sweden must take some sort of leading role in this too.

What I find most frustrating is the fact he gave no thought, nor care to those who's lives he put in danger with Wikileaks revelations. It cannot be proven but wasn't there some information that a doctor, or someone has been killed because of Wikileaks in one of the Arab countries? Also those in his favour find it very convenient to not mention the reason why Sweden want him.

Personally I think he is a coward and I do not understand why the Equadorians or anyone else thinks Sweden gave no ground by refusing to come to London to interview him. This simply would not crop up as a solution for anyone else. He has a power over people I simply find bewildering.

I've been trying to understand what's going on with this case. My understanding so far is that the reason the UK govt is not granting him safe passage out of Britain to Ecuador is because he has now committed a criminal act in Britain, namely skipping bail for the court hearing about his appeal against extradition to Sweden. As I said before, I applaud his Wikileaks work. We need people to reveal the dirty dealings of national governments. However, if the sexual assault charge in Sweden is real (some people think the US is behind that as well!), he most certainly should go on trial for that in Sweden. Under the UN human rights convention Sweden cannot extradite him to the US for espionage, so what's he afraid of? Going to jail for a crime (allegedly) committed in Sweden, or being extradited to the US on some other trumped up charge that wouldn't carry the death penalty (or the possibility of being banged up for life)?

We don't have enough information to know.

But it seems the UK govt is not being as unreasonable as I first thought because, now that he has skipped bail here, we cannot legally give him safe passage to another country.

Perhaps we can't give him safe passage but neither can we storm an embassy to remove him.

As I said before I thought he would leave the Embassy and it has now been reported he is going to appear, on the steps of the Embassy to make a statement.

This man is a neurotic,narcissist in my opinion and he is wallowing in being in the spotlight. If he does go out of the front door of the Embassy, onto the steps, he knows perfectly well he is baiting the British Govt. to make an arrest, just what he wants and needs to put the spotlight well and truly back on him and get a resurgence in his followers causing trouble.

The fact remains he has lost his case against his extradition for his removal to Sweden for sexual misconduct.

N.B

Equador have said he cannot make political statements so news changing quite quickly.

I am concerned Ficketyb that you seem to have concluded he is guilty in Sweden when he has not even been properly interviewed by their police, if I understand correctly.
I can understand the fear about being extradited to US - it is not just the penalities it is the time it takes to bring cases to court and their lack of what we would see as basic sub judice rules . And their willingness to circumvent their own justice system when it suits them to raise a cry of "national security" - look at Guantanamo Bay...
Good article in this week's Economist about how they set up a kind of traffic police post 9/11 who have expanded their remit from just checking people getting on trains to checking them when they get on and off all kinds of transport. Specially if they look middle eastern.
I have yet to hear about any real threat to their national security who has been extradited to the states, under Blair's roll over and show your belly to the big dog agreement. Also post 9/11 wasn't it.

I agree, *vampire, that storming the embassy would be incredibly stupid and just asking for similar treatment of British embassies all over the world. I'm surprised this idea was even countenanced. Maybe it was bluff. I sure hope so.

Yes; either way it makes us look rather ridiculous.

Julian Assange has reason to be concerned that he will be extradited to the US, especially after the treatment of Bradley Manning. There is a petition on Avaaz.org for Bradley Manning who has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_human_rights_whistleblower_Bradley_Manning/

After what I said earlier, I've checked on the law and the Ecuadorian Embassy. The entrance to the block the Embassy is in is shared with a number of other organisations so the lobby is not Ecuadorian territory. And the law was introduced to control the designation of premises as Embassy territory after the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. There are limitations on diplomatic immunity which our ambassador in Quito pointed out to the Ecuadorian government. Not sure how that affects the Assange case except he isn't entitled to immunity. UK spelling this out seems to have been what triggered the Ecuadorian decision to offer Ass political asylum. How will he get from the Embassy to the airport? The lobby is full of police!

Am I alone is finding something slightly creepy about the guy?
If he is truly innocent of the sexual assault charges, why won't he allow the Swedish police to question him? He seems to have many influential friends in this country and I just wonder if he feels he is somehow above the law.
As for the Wikileaks issue, again I feel ambivalent. There must be some rhyme and reason for national security - even if the US seems paranoid, and terrorism is a real threat.
Two wrongs don't make a right and if lives have been endangered by his revelations, that is wrong.

Technically we are able to take way the diplomatic immunity of an embassy so it is no longer considered belonging to that country. However if the government were ever to do this then it opens the door for other countries to do the same to British Embassies around the world.

Somehow this all smacks of us being manipulated by the US government....yet again.

If I were J.A. I would not believe a word of having fair trial in the US either. They have been exposed and he exposed them. He knows where the danger for him lies. He made them look ridiculous and that is the thing that the US really can't take.
On Radio 4 this lunchtime the man from Sweden seemed to think that he would be tried in Sweden for the sexual assault crime and that would be the end of it. Either an embassy has diplomatic immunity or not and if it has then the British Government can't legally to anything about it.

As I have mentioned on GN before. I translated for a German man in court, who had been beaten up by US soldiers.When it came to finding witnesses we learned that the US Army had flown all the suspects and witnesses home a few days before the proceedings.

Spot on MargaretX. The US need to calm down and take a deep breath. Despite Wikileaks the country is still functioning, no harm has come to anyone because of it, it's just that certain people were made to look foolish, undoubtedly because they are. It's revenge that they're after. Their treatment of the young soldier who gave info to Wikileaks has been appalling and you can't blame Assange for not wanting some of the same whatever you think of him. Apparantly, Sweden has a bad record of rendition to the US so may not be totally trustworthy.

BoomerBabe.

I didn't know that about Sweden. How many have they sent to America under rendition laws?. Interested to know as I have never heard anyone before mention Sweden in this way. May make me think a bit harder if true.