1. The two women who accused Assange have said he didn't rape them, he is not violent and they do not fear him and they never intended that he be prosecuted. This is a government-driven case. The first Swedish prosecutor dropped the case as flimsy. A second prosecutor was then brought in to revive the charges but HAS FILED NO CHARGES. Assange is merely wanted for questioning.
2. Assange made himself available for questioning in Sweden and again in London, and the Ecuadoran Embassy recently told the Swedish prosecutor he can come into the embassy without impediments and question Assange. The Swedish prosecutor has refused to question Assange in every instance! Why haven't they questioned Assange, when they've had several opportunities to do so, including a current, open invitation?
3. The Ecuadoran Embassy has offered two resolutions to this (in my opinion U.K./Sweden/U.S. faked) crisis: To Sweden, question Assange in the Embassy, or promise NOT to extradite Assange to the U.S. if he goes to Sweden. The Swedish government has refused both. What does that tell us about what they really want Assange for? They haven't charged him with anything; they want him for questioning but they won't question him when given the chance. And they won't promise not to extradite to a country with the death penalty and a recent history of torturing prisoners.
4. China recently gave safe passage to a Chinese dissident who had entered the U.S. embassy in China and asked for political asylum, during Hillary Clinton's recent visit. Asylum was granted and safe passage was arranged between the two governments and the dissident was flown to the U.S. This is the common understanding and protocol among nations. Political asylum is sacrosanct. It is a sovereign power, and respecting it is part of every human rights convention. Without it, there could be no political asylum. Ecuador has exercised this sovereign power on human rights grounds. They believe that Assange will be extradited to the U.S., cannot get a fair trial in the U.S. and will certainly be silenced and in danger of torture and execution. The U.K.--in addition to its bullying threat to invade the embassy--is violating human rights conventions by not granting Assange safe passage to Ecuador.
Clearly, the Swedish government doesn't give a crap about their fake "rape" case. (That was probably Karl Rove's contribution--smear the guy.) They never wanted to question Assange. They wanted to take custody of Assange. Why? He is not even charged with a crime. Why did they let him leave the country (the first prosecutor told him he could go) and then seek his extradition? Because an extradition warrant guarantees them custody! What jerks they are, to let Assange think that he was cleared and then to go after him in a way that justifies treating him like a criminal, and involves Interpol and the U.K. government and its benighted court system (which is as compromised as our own)! The court looks at the warrant and says, "Take the guy."
He is not charged with any crime. The case against him is flimsy and absurd. He has offered to answer questions and they won't question him. But they "got him"--for avoiding a trumped warrant on a trumped up case. And, as anyone who is not stupid, or playing stupid, should know by now: The point of this entrapment was to get Julian Assange into custody for the crime of journalism!
-------
As for poor Mr. William Hague--he is suffering the fate of "Scooter Libby" apparently. ('Here, let us help you with your sword, sir!') A foreign minister threatens to invade another country's embassy, in writing, without direct orders from the Prime Minister? Come on!
= new reply since forum marked as read