[hollander]

This is an excellent example of telling the facts while distracting from the truth. He's afraid that he will be extradited to the US after being extradited to Sweden. The rape accusations are thought to be just a trick to get him to Sweden. If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately.

[cmdkeen]

And there your are using assertion as truth "If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately." is completely unproven. Especially as Sweden cannot guarantee something that has not been asked for. There is also the inconvenient fact that the UK has to approve further extradition, and has in the past proven quite happy to extradite people to the US - unless Assange suddenly developers Aspergers and becomes the darling of the press which is unlikely. So why was he living, and happy to stay in the UK, if he was concerned with extradition? Given the whole 5 Eyes setup surely the UK should be a much more dangerous location than Sweden?

As I have to point out every time this pops up - Assange has been through the entire appeal chain of the UK courts arguing his case and he has been rejected at every stage. The courts are fiercely independent (see recent Brexit coverage) and have a history of standing up to the government of the day when it comes to extradition.

[belorn]

So at this point in the thread we have had people argue that wikileaks don't present the whole truth, others arguing that the reason WL is biased against US lacks truth, then that the reason Assange is in Ecuadorian Embassy lacks truth, and now that the reason why Assange don't want to go to Sweden lacks truth.

Are we at a point where we should simply put this to third-party researcher?

Let me add my own facts that several third-party lawyers stated in the very first days that this kind of she-said-he-said has no chance to ever result in a conviction, and that the prosecutor is behavior in a oddly way for stating that the case has a strong chance for conviction (all the evidence was leaked and public). She said she was half-asleep, he said she was awake, and on that we got a rape charge of lesser degree, which in average do not even give jail time. No witnesses, no physical evidence, no collaborating-anything for either side. The prosecutor main argument to the media is that Assange claims are not believable because he did not agree to go to Sweden.

This case is the highest cost vs crime severity ever done by Sweden and the UK. It might even be the highest in Europe. Why is so much money being spent on this specific case and not others?

[giaour]

We'll have to agree to disagree on which is the distraction: the finding of British and Swedish courts, which have held that there is probable cause in the rape charges, or Julian Assange's crazy conspiracy theories.

I choose to believe the independent judiciaries of two sovereign nations.

[erikbye]

Independent? You make me laugh. I don't think you realize the power the U.S. holds over countries like Sweden.

[ckastner]

He said independent judiciaries.

[erikbye]

Acting on behalf of a state under immense pressure from the US.

[giaour]

I don't know the specifics of Sweden's judicial system, but the independence of the UK judiciary is guaranteed by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005[1]. Judges have lifetime appointments and are professionally isolated from the other parts of the government.

Assuming that political pressure is being successfully brought to bear on UK judges is just yet another conspiracy theory, concocted to paper over inconsistencies and gaps in the original conspiracy theory.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005

[vacri]

I used to support Assange, but that fell away when finally Sweden agreed to interview him at the embassy as per his request... and he demanded that the interview questions be submitted as a document... and in Spanish. A Swedish prosecutor interrogating an anglo-Australian man residing in England in Spanish? With preprepared questions only? That's clearly obstructing the course of justice beyond the concern for his extradition.

[belorn]

All the reporters that wrote news article about the issue said that the demands was from the Ecuadorian Embassy, not from Assange. A Swedish prosecutor interrogating on Ecuadorian land has to follow what ever requirement that the diplomats want and those requirements depend on relations and politics. Recently there was a story on Swedish nation TV about a case where the other nation dragged their feet by loosing documents, by demanding them to be first faxed then signed then signed with the right colored inc, then mailed by post, then signed again, and a half year later had past and nothing had happened until an "agreement" was reached on a total different political subject and everything suddenly started to move.

In the Assange case I recall even the prosecutor saying that the kind of things was common when doing police work over borders, but that they hoped that things would be done on time. From what I remembered, it was also mostly on time.

[vacri]

Embassies are not the land of the foreign country. Embassies are considered sacrosanct from uninvited local LEOs, because if you violate their embassy, you've created a precedent where anyone can violate yours.

[belorn]

While true, the technicality of the case means that Swedish prosecutors want to interview a Australia person on UK land inside a Ecuadorian embassy.

But since Embassies are considered sacrosanct, it is the Ecuadorians that exercised their right to dictate the rules of the interview rather than the three other involved nations.

[mirimir]

He's been stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy since June 2012. And he's probably rather annoyed about the whole mess by now.

Here's a seemingly comprehensive history: http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-o...

[mirimir]

OK, maybe rather annoyed, but at least not lonely:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4304200/Pamela-Ander...

[erikbye]

If you knew you were innocent, wouldn't you fight a bit dirty against a government who seemingly wants to try you for rape? And it's not like he does not have cause for concern to believe that there might be more behind these rape charges than what's out in the open.

[Lanthanide]

There's fighting dirty, then there's obstructing your own cause. He demanded that very accommodation, why make it more difficult than it needs to be- ESPECIALLY if he knows he's innocent?

He absolutely has cause for concern, I agree, but what he has to gain in this specific case strikes me as a lot more than he can inflict on his opposition, even if it came down to just the PR benefits.

[Ntrails]

> If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately.

He can claim this, allowing him to imply that he is of course innocent, safe in the knowledge that it's impossible for the Swedish prosecutor to make such a guarantee.

[benedikt]

Also Sweden does not extradite anyone that has a chance of facing the death penalty.

And Assange said he would allow himself to be extradited to if Manning was commuted. She was, Assange is still in the Ecuadorian embassy.

The UK has much favourable extradition treaties with the US than Sweden has.

[vacri]

The US has over two million people in prison. Total executions last year was twenty. There is more to fear in being in a US prison than just the death penalty. The extreme sentences are also frightening.

[seppin]

he also said he'd go to US if Chelsea Manning was released. are we still taking him at his word?

[pottersbasilisk]

After seeing what the alphabet organizations are capable off. I can't blame assange either.