UK authorities had Assange in custody. What prevented the US from seeking extradition at that time? -Assuming that it is all a scam for the US to collar him.

Regarding any concerns that Assange is being railroaded or treated as an exception by Sweden's authorities, or that the women have concocted their stories, the very best remedy is for his excellent legal team to test that in Court in Sweden.

Assange's actions do suggest that he has contempt for the Swedish judicial system. Also that he wasn't that smart in not calling their bluff in the first place by fronting up, "OK, let my accusers stand before me". I guess he thought that his celebrity and absence could make it all go away.

At the same time the apparent incompetence of the senior prosecutor/s in Sweden then and since should be subjected to court scrutiny as well. Positive affirmative action anyone? -Just that it reminds Queenslanders of some right stuff-ups in decisions by senior legal women when Labor's Anna Bligh was Premier of that State.

Suck it up people.

Why bother arguing laws when Julian's whole career has been the assumption that the righteousness of his actions place him above the laws that govern us mere mortals.

In the words of esteemed Guardian journalist, Luke Harding:

"I worked with Julian on WikiLeaks and we at the Guardian collaborated pretty well with him until he fell out with us like he falls out with everybody.

He has a rather primitive philosophy of complete transparency. He thinks that if all documents and official secrets are released, we shall bring governments and corporations to account and make the world more democratic.”

more at http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/art-and-stage/10313009/Russia-like-a-beguiling-black-hole

So suck it up people. Our betters are superior to us. Some of our betters are democratically appointed but such is Julian's greatness that he appointed himself.

Therefore his most loopy supporters implicitly believe he has Sovereign Immunity from prosecution, like Henry VIII. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity :

"Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. This principle is commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim "rex non potest peccare," meaning "the king can do no wrong."

When you are as rich and famous as Julian, and you have an international cheer squad, you can break any law you bloody well like.

Got it :) ?

Hi there KILLARNEY...

From the outset, please accept my profound apology for my own 'spectacular ignorance' ? I feel so much better now you given us all the benefit of your august legal opinion should Mr ASSANGE be made to confront the might of US jurisprudence. After all he's only engaged in conduct of a kind, where he'd (allegedly) illegally released protected military material, to unauthorised beneficiaries, ostensibly for a material gain ? Accordingly, no problem and no foul ?

Killarney,

My bet is that this will play out as follows:

* Assange will be questioned by the Swedish authorities and be found to have a case to answer;

* Assange will retreat into the Ecuadorian Embassy rather than answer to the charges;

* The Ecuadorians will eventually get sick of him and hand him over to the Brits;

* the Brits will hand him over to the Swedes, as they are legally bound to do;

* the Swedes will give him a fair trial for rape, then jail him;

* he will serve his time in Sweden, two or three years, and return to England.

End of.

Joe

Loudmouth

I get the impression - correct me if I am wrong - that like many in the media, you think it best for Julian Assange to make his way to Sweden to face his accusers in court.

I put it to you that there is a very rational reason for Assange not to travel to Sweden. Putting aside the possibility of being rendered to the United States, the real objection he has is that he could rot in jail in Stockholm indefinitely before a trail takes place. Yep, indefinitely.

Under Swedish law there is no legal maximum period for which he could be placed in prison before trial. Assuming there is going to be a trial. Unlike say in the United Kingdom where he would have to face trial within at the very outside 182 days (commonly much, much less).

James

Thanks for the tip on Craig Murray's article. Interesting.