He has agreed to go to Sweden, as long as they make a statement saying they will not pass him on to the US, or if the US states that they are not going to try him for espionage. They refused. If they've got nothing to hide (other than rape charges), why not make a statement?
Here in Sweden we're pretty convinced he should be put on trial for rape. He's got nothing to hide... right?
According to the (non-american-owned) reporting here, he's only wanted for questioning (not trial) over "rape". And that it's not even "rape" as in "forced sex acts", but a weird Swedish law that allows adult consensual-sex to be deemed inappropriate after the fact (such as having sex with a minor - it's not ok even when consensual) -- where the prosecutor has decided that the women's consent at the time was obtained through "inappropriate seduction" and that because it was a short-term relationship, they should have used a condom, therefore it is "rape". Are your papers not reporting this?
Are they also not reporting that Assange did present himself to the Swedish police for questioning, but they told him he could freely leave the country because there was no crime committed, and that the case was reopened after political pressure from Claes Borgström? Or that the two woman were friendly with him after the "rapes", and that they refused to sign a witness statement saying that they had been raped? Or that Swedish police routinely travel overseas to question suspects, but have refused repeated requests to question Assange overseas? Or that they demanded an extemely rare "red notice" interpol warrant, for a 'rape' case (even Muammar Gaddafi only had an "orange notice")?
It's pretty rare to find someone here who believes he's a rapist, or that the "rape" allegations are legit.
3 - see above, or watch the documentary linked in the OP. He's wanted for questioning over having non-violent, consensual sex without a condom.
1: - Lets see how much you like if is some one puts YOUR life, and the lives of YOUR family in danger all due to your job being secretive.
2: - The UK has the right to invade the embassy, under international law if they harbor known criminals.
3: - The guy is avoiding RAPE CHARGES in another country
4: - I'm sure international drug cartels, terrorists, and criminals in general would love to know how the government(s) are trying to stop them, and who the informants are.
2 - No, the Vienna convention protects embassies from any unwanted intrusion by police. When criminals in the Lybian embassy alledgedly assassinated a UK policewoman, the UK surrounded the building, but could not enter. They ended up letting the killers leave the country - as this legal protection also extends to embassy vehicles. Not even countries like China have ever violated this convention. It will be an immensely huge even if the UK does storm the embassy to arrest him, criminal or not. It will be the first time this convention has been broken, and it will put at risk the lives of all UK diplomats/spies overseas!
Is the media that you listen to really reporting that the UK does have this right? Where did you get this idea?
1 - That's why Bradley Manning is being tortured while awaiting trial, right - he's the one that allegedly stole the documents? This is also why Wikileaks asked for the US government's help in redacting the files before publishing them, but had to do it themselves after the US refused to help redact sensitive life-and-death information. The New York times also published Manning's stolen files -- are they being painted as a bad guy by your media? Also, the US government was forced to admit that they haven't yet found a case where these documents have resulted in anyone coming to harm...
As a side note -- when the Bush administration decided to leak life-and-death secrets for political gain, like the names of CIA operatives abroad, there were no serious consequences: the few that were jailed (for contempt, not leaking) had their jail sentences overturned by Bush's executive power.
4 - Sensitive names are redacted in the cables. Go read some yourself. The same cables are published by the New York Times, The Guardian, Wikileaks and others -- if you've got a beef with the cables being made public, that's with Manning, not Assange. Or if it is with Assange, it's also with the Times, et al.
If he's being extradited for seemingly political reasons, such as publishing US secrets, he can appeal to the European Human Rights court.
There's one thing I'm not getting. Why couldn't he had been extradited from the UK? Surely they have closer ties with the US.
Once he's in Sweden, he doesn't need to be "extradited" to the USA -- they have a law that allows for "prisoner exchanges" that don't count as extraditions. As soon as Sweden puts him on remand awaiting trial, then as long as the USA promises to return him to Sweden after they're done with him then they can take him and he cannot appeal or ask the EU/UN to intervene.