With something like rape or sexual assault the evidence of 2 women would be more than enough to arrest someone and question them, I sadly have second hand experience of this due to the attempted rape of a very close friend a few years ago. Her evidence/accusation was enough to arrest the guy without any other evidence at the time.

He has been questioned.

And I think it would be wrong to arrest and detain someone purely (and i mean purely, this would be in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, i.e evidence of sexual assault/assault actually having taken place) on the accusation.

And this isnt a case of two women giving an accusation of a rape, this is one woman meeting another women, discussing two separate incidences with a journalist, then making one accusation of molestation on one occasion with only one of the women present, then one accusation of rape on another occasion with the other women present.

It might possibly be wrong, but in many rape/sexual assault etc cases there is little other supporting evidence initially so often arrest is the only way forward initially. It was in the case of my friend. There was no-one else to witness it and there was no CCTV where it took place. As a policeman you have 2 options, ignore the accusation or arrest and question the man while gathering more evidence. I think most people would take the option of temporarily detaining someone rather than ignoring such a serious accusation.
In the case of Assange I just don't see what the Swedish authorities have to gain from making this up. It is difficult to portray the Swedish as US puppets, I see little evidence of them blindly doing the US' bidding. And by the looks of it the warrant is within the law. I really don't see why people come to the conclusion that it's all the work of the US. If the US wanted him that badly it'd be easier to get Britain to extradite him rather than go through the fuss of making up sexual assault charges in Sweden.

I could appreciate that in the immediate aftermath of an offence where evidence is fresh. That argument loses a lot of power when the accusation wasnt made for a week, and we are two years on from that point. There is no point in arrest at this point, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

So why not guarantee that he wont be extradited to the US? If he has a trial to face in Sweden then thats what he should do, and if he does have a trial to face in Sweden why are they having such trouble putting together any kind of case?

This kind of attitude i find a little at odds with any kind of principle of presumption of innocence. It isnt up to Assange to prove his innocence but to Sweden to prove his guilt, they should surely have to prove they have some kind of chargeable case if they are going to detain him (I would argue that forcible extradition is a form of detention)

Why should they guarantee that when he might have committed a crime in the US?
I have no idea of the protocols of Swedish justice but how do we know they have no/little evidence of a case? I doubt it would be acceptable to broadcast the evidence as it would prejudice any potential trial. They've put a legal warrant together that Assange has done absolutely to try and evade, legging it to the Ecuadorian Embassy and claiming political assylum is the act of a desperate, not an innocent man, in my eyes. But even then he can go to Sweden and stand trial, if he's innocent there won't be enough evidence to convict him in Sweden.

If he has, and the US could provide a good case, then he would likely be extradited from pretty much anywhere. Why does it need to be Sweden? If, as you state, he could easily be extradited to the US from here, then why do the three 'offences' need to be linked?
We know their names i think it would be a strange system which allowed us to know who the accusers are but not any of their corroborating evidence at all. And when i say us, i dont mean me and you. I mean a uk court, with uk judges.

The role of the Uk court is not to decide guilt or innocence in a case of a request for someone to be sent to another EU country - its simply to assess whether there is evidence to support the possibility. It appears that in this case the courts have done exactly that.

In any event, whether from Sweden or the UK, any potential extradition to the US would end up in the European courts. That's why all this conspiracy theory stuff is nonsense - Sweden and the UK will have virtually identical extradition protocols via their membership of the EU, and in a case such as Assange's, it would end up at the European courts regardless of which country the proceedings start in.

As an aside, the one possibility that can probably be completely discounted is any death sentence on Assange in the US. Any extradition from the EU would have to include undertakings from US authorities not to pursue the death sentence. That kind of undertaking happens all the time (including extraditions from Australia to the US).

Isn't it easier to send him to the states than Sweden, all the Yanks have to do is ask isn't it.

I'd bet 99% of people would assume it would be easier to get an extradition to the US out of the UK than Sweden before Assange and co raised the issue. The reality is that membership of the EU will require virtually identical protocols for any extradition to a non-EU state.

I appreciate it's a long shot but 'jet pack' would be brilliant.



[urlhttp://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/julian-assange/how-will-he-leave-the-ecuadorian-embassy[/url

At some point, the Ecuadorians are going to figure out how much this freeloader is costing them in food and board. Then he'll be out on his ear.

Why is 'coffin' not an option.

Ah my mistake, it's a list of what might happen, not what you would like to happen.

Now now.
He's been physically unwell, a little like your partner, I believe.
One shouldn't wish the worst for the afflicted.

Perhaps he thinks it is more likely he'll get a fairer hearing in a central american country?



Where were the European courts when people were being plucked off the streets of European countries (Italy being a good example) by US Special Forces and "disappeared" into Egyptian or Jordanian torture chambers? Where were the European courts when the US were flying thousands of extraordinary renditions here, there and everywhere across Europe?

And on the subject of Sweden - where were the Swedish courts when the government allowed Swedish airfields to be one of the key stop-off points in all of Europe.

If the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Stratfor_email_leakStratfor Leaks[/url and Bradley Manning's lawyers are to be believed (and there is good evidence to suggest that the former certainly are the truth) then there is currently a sealed warrant signed by the US Chief Justice for the arrest of Julian Assange currently pending activation. Bear in mind that under recent legislation by the Obama administration Julian Assange is classified as much a "terrorist" as Osama bin Laden (probably MORE of a terrorist because the threat posed by Wikileaks to the US power establishment is potentially far greater).

Had Assange fled to any other country in Europe (with the exceptions of Germany and France both of whom retain sufficient political clout to deliver Obama a bloody nose) a Special Forces extraction unit would already have picked him up (as has happened with other "terrorists"icon_wink.gif across Europe - in many cases WITH the collusion of the sovereign nation.

Given Sweden's long and sordid history with US rendition my guess is he would have been snatched almost immediately after touching down (any longer and the politics threaten to become extremely messy). And the European Court will do precisely WHAT with a man who now sits in Guantanamo Bay?