The Piratebay trials have shown how corrupted the Swedish justice system can be, with both police, prosecution and judges having proven private connections with the copyright industry (which in itself is not only organized and financed by the US, but also actively backed up by the US government).
Being extradited to the US would make him a martyr, but being convicted for rape in Sweden would damage his reputation beyond repair. I doubt if the US even wants to deal with the whole circus of getting Assange extradited if there's an easier way to take him out of play.
Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts.
Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt. Assange knows this. His lawyers know this. If Assange thought he wouldn't get a fair trial he would have argued this point in the English courts. Many people have avoided extradition from the UK to various unpleasant places on the basis they wouldn't get a fair trial.
His legal argument was flimsy at best. Assange tried to argue Sweden lacked the authority to issue the arrest warrant in the first place, an argument that was basically laughed out of court. However, the English courts have had a lot of patience for Assange, and have offered him several avenues of appeal on the basis it's an important and high profile case. The Supreme Court even allowed an additional submission after their judgement (this is very unusual).
This is a criminal case involving two parties. Both parties have guaranteed rights. Think about the women involved for a second. They have accused Assange of rape. Perhaps they are lying: Assange is after all innocent until proven guilty. But is it out of the question they are telling the truth? No, it's not.
And that is why Assange should really willingly return to Sweden to face his accusers. He isn't willing, and his arguments about fearing the US really aren't that convincing given the UK is more than happy to extradite people to the states.
I might be wrong but there is a slight difference between not wearing a condom and rape. I don't care if Sweden is calling consensual sex without condom rape. In Assange's case, he allegedly sabotaged his condom with one woman and allegedly refused to wear a condom with another one but he did not have sex with them against their will. Nobody can argue that because there are no signs of forceful sex.
IMO, this is crazy. There is no way of proving Assange right since only witnesses are two different women claiming similar accusations and the nature of the crime does not allow much evidence. It might sound like a crazy conspiracy theory (I take into account that even Canadian strategist called for Assange's assassination[1]), but somebody might be paying these two women (or threatening them) to lie in the court.
Where did this come from? Due process is a right of the accused. I've never heard of accusers having due process rights. After all, anyone can accuse anyone of anything. And prosecutors can just roll their eyes at them, if they want.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the accusations against JA are worth an eye-roll; I'm only questioning your assertion about due-process rights for accusers.
Also, I'm generally familiar with U.S. law, less so with English law, and very much less so with Swedish.
ACCUSATION is not guilt.
http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapd...
Wah wah.
None of us know what the US is doing, if anything. We do know, by their own admission, that they began an aggressive investigation into whether or not Assange could be charged. We also know that everyone known associated with Wikileaks had their twitter and other social accounts subpoenaed. Manning's lawyer also indicated that the DoJ discussed the possibility of a plea bargain. As recently as a few weeks ago, US officials said they are waiting to see how the UK case plays out before charging him.
It is more probable than not that after such statements and aggressive investigations, that the US will charge him. It is more probable than not that the reason they have not yet done so, is because it's better for them to let this case finish, as they said.
Assange is not under the impression that he is immune to these inevitable charges and extradition in any of the countries involved. He has resigned to the fact that he is likely to face the US DoJ, and an extradition request, one way or another.
Assange believes that he has a tactical advantage in this case if this does not happen in Sweden. I don't know all of the reasons for this, but this is not surprising, and he has obviously been advised to exhaust this route by his legal counsel. It's safe to assume that this has been their decision, not his.
This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just how court cases work. Even in the US, it is common to fight for the most favorable jurisdiction. The presence of an extradition treaty in both countries does not mean that an extradition request is equally difficult to fight in both countries. This could change depending on laws in a specific country, or even be influenced by public perception or even corruption.
When is the last time someone was held for a year and a half in an international dispute to be questioned about a broken or missing condom incident? That makes the least sense.
Edit: It's worth noting that according to the hacked stratfor emails, the US already has a sealed indictment for him:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/28/1069018/-Leaked-Str...
Edit: I checked, and Ecuador does have extradition treaties with both the UK and the US. I don't know about Sweden though.
Edit2: according to http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks... Ecuador has a treaty with the EU as well. But moving to Ecuador puts the decision in Ecuadorian hands instead of UK, so maybe he thinks they will stand up for him better.
Is an embassy really obliged to shelter any foreign national who might show up on the run from the law for a fairly prosaic [ahem alleged] crime? If I knock over a gas station can I show up at the Tanzanian embassy, say "Hi, I'm a political refugee" and hang around for long enough for them to process this claim?
Maybe Assange thought it was worth trying a known "friendly" country first. Also the Ecuador government claimed it had nothing to lose from wikileaks' leaks, so if they really didn't maybe they'll be less likely to try to screw him.
I would imagine that if the Ecuadorian government was to grant asylum that its courts would likely find the extradition request to be political persecution and thus dismiss it for violating his rights under the UNHDR and/or Ecuadorian constitutions.
So, yes while most countries have extradition agreements, some have more respect for the rule of law than others.
He's not trying to avoid extradition so much as seeking a jurisdiction where he believe he'll be tried more fairly with respect to the UNHDR and other inalieable rights endowed by his creator.
The Ecuatorian president is introduced as "populist", yet the interview is non-critical. I thought "populist" was globally pejorative?
Edit: the president himself uses the term in a negative context
For example, promising to cut the gasoline tax would be a very populist tactic -- people think "I pay less for gas, that's great!", whereas elites would think, "we'll have less money for infrastructure, leading to decline, or else we'll have to raise taxes elsewhere, making non-drivers subsidize drivers."
And by calling this tactic populist, you would generally be indicating that it appeals to the electorate's ignorance. Most people consider that a bad thing, since it leads to worse outcomes. Hence, populism is a pejorative term. I'm referring to use of the word in the US only.
If you want a positive term, you would describe something as "democratic" instead.
(I'm an American from New York who follows politics a lot.)
The following headlines are example use of "populist" with negative connotations (they are not the only ones, I just provide anecdotal evidence of the common use of "populist" as a negative trait).
British English:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837098
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid... (beware starts parliamentary video automatically)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/punitive...
French:
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/02/09/le-populisme...
Spanish:
http://www.abc.es/20120515/opinion/abcp-populista-eres-20120...
Edit: I know were not talking directly about the US here, but the reason I made the jump is that I see Sweden as a lot more likely to allow the US to bully it into giving up Assange
Though I back his politics 100% and consider him a hero to be remembered, he has every responsibility to face his accusers in a fair trial. Shame on Sweden if they hand him over to the Americans after his trial has concluded.
First off, sexual assault and rape laws are very different in Sweden, and the crimes he has allegedly committed wouldn't be translated as assault or rape in most countries. Though that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do something bad to someone that requires legal recourse; what currently stands are accusations of crime under Sweden's legal code.
More importantly, suspicion arises because the Swedish prosecutor's office initially withdrew the rape charge and warrant for Assange's arrest, and weeks later the charge was brought back. Some time after that, a European arrest warrant was issued. Some are suspicious that this was due to pressure from the US government, as they would like to see Assange in prison, but I'm not going to give my opinion.
Also, Assange has yet to be charged. I'm not sure how this works in Sweden, but it seems in this case that they don't want to charge Assange until after a second round of questioning. That is what the extradition is for.
"Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them." David Leigh of the Guardian newspaper tells FRONTLINE of meetings he attended with Assange in the run-up to publication of the war logs. "And we said: 'Julian, we've got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.' And he said: 'These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.' And a silence fell around the table."
This is David Leigh, an fairly reputable guy who runs investigative reporting for _The Guardian_, not exactly an institution known for cowtowing to the military industrial complex of the US. Do you think he made this up? I don't.
With Sweden's looney toons laws, I strongly disagree.
While Wikileaks is certainly a motivating factor, and I'm sure it's why this story gets as much press as it does, I don't think it's where his legal problems stem from. As far as I know, the US has nothing to do with it.
All this posturing about how the US wants him is a smoke screen - Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US. Assange may be completely innocent: trying to desperately avoid being questioned about the alleged offences doesn't paint a great picture.
Anyone who doesn't think the US government is behind this is living in cloud cuckoo land.
But if I were him, I'm not sure I'd be willing to take any chances. The consequences are just too great.
Why did he not simply remain anonymous? All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right?
Being public seems to have been the tactical error. (or was he trying to be anonymous, but got outed at some point and then given that he couldn't be anonymous anymore he decided to embrace it?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.htm... goes into their history. I'm tempted to quote a few paragraphs but it wouldn't be fair since there is a very large picture being painted.
Guess what Bill Keller also wrote?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/the-i-can-t-believ...
I say no.
Taking a feather from Rock 'n Roll, you need a front-man.
In all seriousness, if you find yourself asking "Why did this man choose fame, glory and groupies over the good of the cause he claims to espouse" then you don't know much about human psychology.
