[mkramlich]

So it appears that both the UK government and the Swedish government have lost moral authority due to their behavior on this issue. And if they violate the Ecuadoran embassy that could be considered an act of war. At the least a cause to cease diplomatic and trade relations.

If Sweden truly just wanted to question Assange, they could do it via mail, email, phone, video chat or of course an in person meeting in the UK. All of which I believe Assange has already offered to do. But they've declined. Which means that Sweden/UK/USA's actual goal is something other than simply questioning him. It's a fact that he's neither been convicted or even charged with any crime (IIRC), especially not with respect to the supposed sexual "assault" incidents, which look like he-said/she-said instances at best, and a frame-up at worst.

[youngtaff]

Since when has the 'accused' had the right to tell law enforcement agencies when and where they may be questioned?

[delinka]

Without charges (i.e. being placed under arrest) he has every right to freedom of movement. Ergo he can answer (or not answer) questions wherever he damn well pleases. If that's so inconvenient for law enforcement, charge the fucker and arrest him.

I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.

[eurleif]

He was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.

[delinka]

Had he remained under arrest, how could he have sought asylum with some other embassy?

"Mr. Copper, I've decided to seek asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy..." "Well, Mr. Assange, I sure hate to see you go but I guess I'll drive you there myself."

[eurleif]

He had been released on bail, pending an appeal, which he lost.

[delinka]

Apparently something is missing here. How did he get from being in custody to seeking asylum in an embassy? Somewhere along the way he was not in custody. Why was he not in the custody of law enforcement? They had no reason to hold him? He was out on bail? If he was out on bail, lost an appeal, why didn't he return to custody?

If they didn't want him walking around (where he could claim asylum in an embassy) then he should have been in custody. If he wasn't in custody, there must have been a reason he wasn't. Sounds to me like they (law enforcement) screwed up and they're now trying to blame an Ecuadorian ambassador.