Julian Assange is being 'arbritarily detained' by the UK government... Really?

How so? Given the many appeals, court hearings, and extradition hearings, I think it is safe to assume there are concrete grounds for his arrest. Sweden and the UK aren't exactly renown for their corrupt judicial systems.

The UN is a joke

Thank you for that incisive and pertinent analysis.

He's not a US government employee "obliged to withhold classified documents", thus there is no legal precedent for such a prosecution (for espionage).


i think the closest analogy is US v Franklin, which failed (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html)

Assange should still be prosecuted - it's up to the prosecutor to bring charges, for his defence to argue against them and for the jury to decide which side they believe.

It's utterly ridiculous people defend him for avoiding questioning on the matter of sexual assault.

I'm pretty sure he has accepted Sweden's jurisdiction to try him, but on the condition that he doesn't leave the Embassy to be tried (e.g. by video-link), or that if he does return to Sweden he isn't then extradited to US to face bs charges (at best).

Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US, why should he be exempt from normal legal processes?

On what grounds does the US seek his extradition?


The "extradition treaty" you speak of is not 'absolute', it only operates for certain (alleged) offences. At the moment, the US haven't stated what offences he might be charged with in the US, so it's unclear whether the treaty is relevant ('but also unlikely as it prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offence" ' ) .

And of course because of that countries may be tempted to take matters into their own hands and deal out extra-territorial murder a.k.a. Polonium Justice or Putinism.

If this is indeed the case, why does he fear going to Sweden to be questioned on the alleged sex offences?


As you rightly say, the treaty with the US does not apply in all cases.

No because they are on the land of the state which has an (exercised) arrest warrant out for them.

Assange's situation is that he is in an Ecuadorian enclave surrounded by the UK and due to this he cannot have safe passage: given the small size of the embassy he is effectively detained extrajudicially by the UK.

It's like if South Africa decided not to let any Lesothoans out or if the EU decided not to let any Swiss out.

Can Sweden promise not to extradite him to the U.S. once they clear him of the trumped-up charges against him?

That's why I asked you "On what grounds does the US seek his extradition?" - no one knows what grounds the US may claim/create to get around that restriction.

You can keep repeating some rubbish about what Putin supposedly does, but unless it directly concerns Assange and Sweden/US then it's not relevant and I don't really care.

you are having a laugh.

Assange has chosen to place himself there and could leave at any time , at which point he would Actually be detained at the request of the Swedes

This has all arisen becasue assanges tin foil hat got all absorbed out and he thinks answering for his alleged sexual misdemeanours is some plot to get him to the US to face trial for the wikileaks stuff.

It's utterly ridiculous people defend him for avoiding questioning on the matter of sexual assault.


If a controversial politician run away to a foreign country so as to avoid questioning on sex offences and claimed that he was being persecuted for his views, nobody would accept such blatant disregard for due legal processes. He is of the same moral standard as Gary Glitter when he fled to the far east to avoid the charges brought against him.

And that comparison is exactly why they set up a sting involving a sexual offence, in Sweden too where if you so much as look at a girl wrong you have raped her.