Which doesn't make sense, who is more friendly with the US, Britain or Sweden?
EDIT: what I'm clarifying is that he's not avoiding Sweden because he thinks they'll deport him to the US, that would have been more likely staying in the UK.
He's in the Ecuadorian Embassy, which is beyond the legal reach of the US, the UK, and Sweden.
He jumped bail because the UK was going to deport him to Sweden, and Sweden was likely to deport him to the US, where he'd be Manninged before (eventual) trial.
Jumping bail isn't a crime in the UK. It simply means the gov gets to keep your bail money.
If Sweden drops charges he'll be free to go, unless the UK can manufacture a pretext for extradition (always possible) or the US sweeps him off the street (also possible, but unlikely to make the US popular with European countries who are already unhappy about being spied on.)
"A person who is convicted summarily of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above [which outline not attending without good reason] and is not committed to the Crown Court for sentence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and a person who is so committed for sentence or is dealt with as for such a contempt shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or to both."
The court and / or the CPS may view that there is no public interest in that, though similarly they may view given the cost to the tax payer of the round the clock surveillance of the embassy he should be made an example of.
A few people in this thread are saying that he's not on English soil; that the embassy is under Ecuadorian law.
That's a myth. Ambassadors get immunity and international politeness means we don't go raiding embassies[1] but Assange is in England, on English soil, subject to English law, and being in some other country's embassy doesn't change that.
[1] unless they hold hostages or shoot our police officers
True. What protects him at the moment are international customs. This is way too small a matter for the UK to risk international backlash by raiding an embassy.
I believe there was something about Sweden having a covert relationship with NATO, which might mean they might extradite him, vs Ecuador which isn't. Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil.
That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference.
If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today.
Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist.
> Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil.
He was on British soil for months while his extradition case dragged on. And whatever "covert" ties Sweden has with NATO (which is not the USA), the U.K. has substantially many more with the U.S. directly. The "special relationship" is a real thing, so if some sort of covert rendition were a real worry for Assange, it would have already happened without needing to involve a Scandinavian nation.
> That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference.
He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest and formal charge proferring. You can't book people by VTC last I checked; either way, Assange is in no position to unilaterally demand the conditions of his treatment as compared to any other defendant under Swedish law. Does he think he's royalty or something, and above the law as applied to the rest of Sweden?
> If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today.
See above.
> Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist.
Perhaps. If only there was some deliberative process by which a group of persons might decide where that nugget of evidence stacks up in determining whether Assange is actually guilty or not guilty, we could help clear all this up.
> The "special relationship" is a real thing, so if some sort of covert rendition were a real worry for Assange, it would have already happened without needing to involve a Scandinavian nation.
It could have been that this was the most convenient excuse.
> He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest
Yes, they've asked to arrest - ie, detain - him to question him. They haven't charged him with any crime.
I think there's a very real danger that someone wants to punish him for exposing government war crimes. But maybe you're right and it's just because he's a primadonna and the US government is pretty chilled out about the whole thing.
> Yes, they've asked to arrest - ie, detain - him to question him. They haven't charged him with any crime.
He's been properly charged. The fact that this meme refuses to die is my whole point about tribalism, the meme's not merely misleading, it's false, and yet it continues to persist, and for no reason. After all, he might very well be found not guilty, especially if the evidence against him is so flimsy as his supporters claim, but Assange has prevented the trial from even reaching that point, and his supporters believe that this is proper because the situation pertains to His Wikiness and for no other reason.
The "questioning" they will be doing of Assange is to ensure that there are no mitigating facts that Assange would be able to bring to cause the prosecutor to rescind the charges based on the mounds of evidence already accumulated. Afterwards he will be immediately taken into custody (and somehow I doubt he will be released on bail given his current ongoing flight from justice).
Nor is this simply a rogue prosecutor in Sweden, Assange's case was heard by an appeals court in Sweden and in multiple appeals courts in the U.K., all of which determined that there was sufficient evidence shown to demonstrate that the trial could proceed.
> I believe there was something about Sweden having a covert relationship with NATO
The UK co-founded NATO, and is still in it. Assange was walking around the UK (a NATO member) for months while his appeal was on-going. In fact he left Sweden for the UK after he was first questioned by the police. If he was so concerned about NATO, why did he leave Sweden for the UK?
> That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference.
No, they want to arrest him. In his appeals, the UK High & Supreme Court have acknowledged that.
As the UK has extradited him to Sweden, the Swedes would actually need permission from the UK to extradite him to a third country.
Let's also remember, the UK has spent years being the US's bitch when it comes to foreign policy, defence and intelligence matters. I can't think of a single nation in the world who have been more willing to do America's bidding than the UK. It really makes no sense for the US to involve a third party.
He's still got to get from the embassy to the car (remember that the embassy is a two bedroom apartment - it's not got underground parking on embassy soil a car could get into) and then from the car to the plane.
A bunch of the newspapers here (the UK) looked into this at the time and the short version was there was no realistic, workable way of getting him out without the UK co-operating.
Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not
enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign
territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises
of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of
the host state while being afforded special privileges
(such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
