[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345158581' post='4970366']
That's not what happened. Sweden issued an arrest warrant. They withdrew the arrest warrant pending further investigation and allowed him to leave...

Right now so called 'experts' are writing in swedish media saying that 'He should come to Sweden for questioning. The whole investigation will be thrown in the trashcan anyway because there is not enough evidence'. If that is the case, then I wonder why there is so much effort being put into this?
[/quote]
The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it. It goes both ways. It was pretty simple until he refused to go back to Sweden, failed appealing extradition a handful of times, then sought asylum in ecuador.

UK->US extradion isn't as easy as it might seem; a case like it, a UK citizen who was charged with hacking the US defense system, has been stalled in the courts here for 8 years. While he is not a UK citizen the fact he is a commonwealth one might complicate matters. (IANAL and all that)[/quote]
Extradition of citizens is a totally different matter than extraditing foreign nationals. When you extradite a citizen all your other citizens start questioning if you'd do the same to them. When you extradite a foreign national, people might get upset, but they won't be paranoid about their own safety.

The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it. It goes both ways. It was pretty simple until he refused to go back to Sweden, failed appealing extradition a handful of times, then sought asylum.

• What danger is he fleeing?
  
• Is he justified in fleeing it?
  

He had consensual sex with two woman, they found out that they'd both shared a man without a condom and went to the police asking if there was any way to force him to take an STD test. The prosecutor was not present, so a duty-prosecutor sat in and told the woman that under Swedish law, this counted as "rape". They objected and refused to sign the statement they had made.

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.
[/quote]

The reason that I created this topic, is because it's just become official that he does , within a reasonable doubt, have reason to seek asylum from being extradited from Sweden. That's the decision that Ecuador came to after reviewing all of the extensive evidence,[/quote]
Ecuador had already come to him after he planned to leave Sweden as a potential new host for wikileaks. To say they are an impartial third party would be false.

to the confirmation that the US has a sealed indictment against him[/quote]
Confirmed by whom?

to the fact that the UK is threatening to violate an inviolable convention that is the basis for all modern diplomacy over a minor sex allegation.[/quote]
He's a celebrity trying to get away with sexual assault by using his status and paranoia to gain asylum in a foreign country. What kind of precedent does it set if they allow it? That all you have to do if you commit a crime in the EU is run to the UK and seek asylum in a non-extraditionary country? The hyperbole knife cuts both ways.

The UN special rapporteur on torture declared that his treatment (800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists) does amount to torture, that's what I was referencing with the word 'torture'. Keep in mind that in the US, water-boarding and electrocution aren't even called torture, but "enhanced interrogation"...[/quote]
That's totally inaccurate even by the source you use. It wasn't 800 days, it was July 29, 2010 to March 2, 2011 (significantly less than 800 days) when he was in Quantico. He was not naked at all. He had restricted clothing on account of his being deemed a suicide risk(shoes without laces etc), and was forced to be awake between 5AM(7AM on weekends) and 8PM [I've seen 10PM also] only (15-17 is significantly less than 23 hour days), was allowed out of his cell daily, was allowed books and magazines, and he was permanently moved in April, 2011 to a different facility.

Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

He's been accused of a massive intelligence leak, and the Beacon of Freedom is supposed to value the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". One should expect that he wouldn't be being punished until after his show trial is over.[/quote]
He was also a military officer. Once you sign into service there are quite a number of extra laws you have to deal with. At most he should expect to have the same treatment as other high risk pre-trial criminals in this country, which is pretty well what he got.

He's not avoiding the sex-crime trial, he's avoiding the death penalty.
[/quote]
So he's been charged with a crime warranting the death penalty?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
This all hinges on the fact that releasing the documents was legal in the first place, which is also totally questionable. Was it good that some of the things were released, probably. Was it extremely detrimental to the security of the US, it's allies, and it's informants, definitely. In some cases it put families in direct harm. Despite what's been said earlier, many of the documents released included the names of Afghan informants, their families, and their locations (http://www.msnbc.msn...s/#.UC3G2N1lSAo).

Is it just that they, taking action to remove themselves from an oppressive government that supported terrorist organizations, should be put directly into harms way because some guy can't do a thorough check before spilling the beans? What about the damages to finding future intelligence that could potentially save lives? But yea, outing the US on some legitimately bad things should totally give you a free pass on sexual assault and giving up the names and locations of informants who were still in harms way.

"having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used" - this is the main allegation, that they didn't use a condom, but she consented anyway even though having 2nd thoughts about it. This would not be illegal anywhere else...

The grant of asylum has nothing to do with the "sex without a condom" issue, at all. Ecuador has granted him asylum to protect him from the very real threat of US persecution. He's been more than fair with Sweden in attempting to assist their investigation. You're deliberately ignoring this.[/quote]
I'm not deliberately ignoring anything. I started by giving only facts, and that was met with enormous hyperbole. I was just giving another hyperbolic scenario that's just as likely; that Ecuador would grant him asylum in exchange for him hosting wikileaks from there rather than from Switzerland, as was his original plan after Sweden fell through. Ecuador has already offered him a non-extradition agreement in the past before granting him asylum for this exact same thing.

I don't think that's what's happening, but it has at least as much evidence as the story you're painting.

Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

Over 800 days of pre-trial detention.[/quote]
If you're including the time after his pre-trial hearings, which started in 2011 then sure, but this happens quite regularly. It's not unusual for murder cases to be in pre-trial for years; I don't see how a trial for treason/espionage would be any different.

Stripped of his clothes and given a smock (oh yes, not forced nudity).[/quote]
He was on suicide watch in prison. What do you expect them to do give him silk robes and fur moccasins?

23-hour a day solitary confinement (not 23-hour forced wakefulness - where did you get that idea from?)[/quote]
I guess I misread wakefulness, but solitary confinement isn't that unusual for high risk inmates. He was still allowed to talk to guards, his lawyer, and his family and friends during visiting hours.

If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged? The legality hinges on the argument that Wikileaks doesn't count as journalism.]
[/quote]
The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge. Journalism, which is the closest thing to what wikileaks could be attributed to my knowledge, is a very dangerous game to be playing around the espionage act. I can only assume the NYT does a better job of drawing the line between what is and is not illegal to divulge. It's one thing to ruin the careers and relationships of some people, and entirely another to put lives in cross hairs.

The investigation is for "conspiracy to commit espionage" - that's confirmed. Whether he's been charged or not is unknown - leaks show there are sealed charges, and this hasn't been denied. Even if this is false, the fact that there is an investigation against him for "conspiracy to commit espionage" is known, and yes, they can execute you for that.[/quote]
I'd say at the very least he deserves an investigation by the US. He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them.