Well, yes, Yabby....most people don't do anything about anything - and if someone like Assange hoves into view and stirs the pot, the same people label him an attention-seeking drama queen.

Are you suggesting he should refuse Ecuador's lifeline now it's achieved?

Poirot I'm suggesting that Assange is probably doing what he loves, doing, ie being the centre of media attention, with everyone flocking around him. How many people get that much attention, over their
individual human rights?

So he's playing the game for all that its worth, which he seemingly
enjoys. I certainly don't see him as a victim.

I did read the Guardian link Poirot and found it a succinct description of the the "real world" in reference made to Mikk (whom seems to have developed a personal dislike for someone he has never met).

As well as Assange himself being at the epicentre of all this, is the issue of the sanctity of the free press and the activity of whistle blowers.

Are these things we wish to retain and encourage ?, or, is it better not to know at all how the "real world" operates, and just cop it ?.

If the US is allowed to "render" (and I use this word on purpose), Julian Assange to face espionage charges in that country, from the UK, Sweden or any other country, then the message to the free press and whistle blowers throughout the so called free world, will be clear. Freedom of speech and access to information will be a luxury item for the few, for evermore.

Julian Assange aside , if you can't see this Agro,Has, Mikk and Stg, why, because I am at a loss to understand how such action by the US could be interpreted as anything but political by any reasoned person. Such action would certainly not be born of anything logical, justifiable, morally defensible, socially beneficial, or even sane for that matter.

If we accept this, then where do we go from here?, and could some explain democracy for me again ?.

As for the Assange part, it occurs to me that this is similar to a property dispute in that possession is 9/10ths of the law, whomever is holding Julian Assange controls the game.

The US is already holding the pawn in Bradley Manning; its now aiming trap the champion of the free press/whistle blowers in checkmate. The aim being to have his influence quelled, his notion of a window to reality for all to see, closed, his visage a memory, for once and for all.

If I may say, the stakes are too high here for flippancy.

I like the way speculation becomes fact around here.

1. Currently there is no evidence of US involvement in any of the actions undertaken. It is all supposition. It makes no sense for the US to be trying to get Assange extradited to Sweden. If the US wants Assange it would be far simpler and less risky to apply for extradition from the UK. The Swedish legal expert Assange had at his trial categorically stated that the US would not be able to extradite Assange from Sweden. Presumably that means while the investigation in Sweden is active, but it is not clear. In any case, under European laws a person cannot be extradited to another country for an offence which may involve the death penalty. So all those comments are simply speculation as well.

2. Assange has broken no US law. He has embarrassed the US dramatically; however, this precedent https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/case.html upheld the 1st Amendment with respect to US military documents. So Assange cannot be charged with publishing the documents.

3. There is a valid European Arrest Warrant for Assange’s arrest and repatriation to Sweden who claim he has a “probable case” to answer. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

4. Ecuador has broken with The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf and given asylum to someone who is not eligible under international law http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html How the UK is going to react to this remains to be seen. Storming the Embassy was never an option - despite the grandstanding by the Ecuadorean Foreign Minister.

5. Political asylum in Ecuador is of no value to Assange unless he can get to Ecuador. There are limited ways that Ecuador can legally get Assange out of the UK. About the only way would be to accredit him as a diplomat, but the UK is like to refuse the accreditation. Accreditation to any other country won’t help because the diplomatic immunity only applies in the accredited country. Accreditation to the UN might work, but I suspect the UK will arrest and then let the courts decide rather than let him out.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html

"The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the Wikileaks publisher for more than eighteen months....Australia's ambassador to the US, former Labor leader, Kim Beazley, has made high-level representations to the American government, asking for warning on any moves to prosecute Assange..."

Are you saying that it's perfectly reasonable for the UK to threaten to invade Ecuadorian embassy space to arrest a man who is merely wanted for "questioning" in regard to the Swedish allegations?

Do you not find that a tad ridiculous?

Agronomist am I stretching things or are you being critical of others rights to opinions other than those you hold?
I have heard of Americans holding pre trial meetings to get the man convicted.
And Manning is not the first to be arrested held on the charge?
Being concerned at his own country's actions.
A victim of caring too much was uncovered after he let evidence of American involvement in Australian politics out.
Wounder if they let him out yet?