Ecuador granted him asylum. Under any reasonable interpretation of international law, that means he gets to go to Ecuador as a free man. That's what asylum MEANS, and every sovereign nation on earth gets to provide that protection for whomever they decide is deserving of it. Instead, the Brits, acting, as usual, as sycophants for the U.S. intelligence & war profiteer industry, trapped him in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, spitting on international law and spitting on Ecuador's sovereignty, shoving the law aside as not applying to them, and shoving Ecuador's sovereignty aside as of no importance. 'Such a little country. Such a brown country. Heck with you," was their attitude. And they very nearly invaded the Ecuadoran embassy in London--they threatened to, anyway--an act of war.
Sweden's behavior in all this has also been appalling--first of all, getting an Interpol warrant merely to "question" him on sexual allegations that are so flimsy and ridiculous the first Swedish prosecutor dropped the case--AND told Assange he could leave the country. He did. Suddenly, there's a new prosecutor who has more "questions." Just "questions." No charges. No court appearance. QUESTIONS! He was questioned, originally, then he offered repeatedly to be questioned again, in London, then in the Ecuadoran embassy. They refused. What they clearly wanted was just to get him into custody, in any way possible, and he rightfully feared that next he would find himself in some deep dungeon in the USA, like Chelsea Manning. He is not even American. He is Australian, and that is a third government--plus our own--that has played foul in this situation, by not backing up the rights of their own citizen.
Finally, FINALLY, this injustice is being put right. I sincerely hope that the reason it was put right was not only that it is the right legal and moral thing to do, but also that President Obama agreed to it (behind the scenes of course). I don't know if he did. I also don't know if he had the power to agree (given the pervasive power of our secret government agencies and military establishment). But I can hope.
Obama may have okayed the peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC, that have been taking place in Cuba--ending a 50+ year civil war. I doubt that those peace negotiations--which are on the point of success--could have occurred without U.S. approval (because of military, economic "free trade for the rich" and other ties between Colombia and the U.S.). Credit to Obama, if that was his decision. It was quite possibly a decision made by Leon Panetta early in his tenure as CIA Director, early in the Obama administration. Cheney-Rumsfeld had significantly escalated that civil war, with lots of bloodshed and corruption. Panetta took a trip to Colombia, early on, and soon the really bad guy who was in power (Uribe) was out, and the new guy (Santos) started the peace negotiation. But Obama probably agreed to it, and okayed it. (Santos also wants all drugs decriminalized!)
I say this because it points out that the Obama administration has done some wise things in Latin America. The opening to Cuba is another. Cheney-Rumsfeld seriously alienated the entire region. Big Corp is likely okay with these Obama decisions, because, for instance, you can't have nice, high-end tourist facilities with a civil war going on. Also, oil corps, mining corps, big-ag corps, etc., will have to worry less about security as they plunder the resources. But just from a human point of view, no war is better than war, aside from anything else. That's wise, or at least SANE. (Cheney-Rumsfeld were insane, truly.)
So, it's POSSIBLE that the UN panel was clued in (by Obama or his agent) that letting Assange go to Ecuador is okay. We'll see what happens there. I wouldn't put it past the CIA to be planning an abduction (whether Obama approves or not). Ecuador will need to be quite vigilant, not to have their country spit on once again by yet another violation of asylum.
= new reply since forum marked as read