Thats all very well Agro but it ignores the fact that many of power and influence in US politics and the military have most publicly expressed their desire and intent to get their hands on Assange.

In addition to this the Fairfax press today ran a story with documentary report that our own foreign affairs department also believe in a possible threat to Assange from the US.

Your case also ignores many unexplained anomalies of this situation. Why don't the Swedes ask their questions in the UK and then charge him if they must, then apply for extradition.
Answer: because it's about having possession of Assange, not for being in possession of a valid reason for detaining or extraditing him.

The un-precendented thuggish behaviour of the British Gov't is another.

The leaked stratfor emails another, providing a clearcut example of evidence of the possibility of threat to either JA's liberty or person. And so on.

Your list of rules would be great if everybody observed them, but in the real world of today thats often not the case, and I suspect as well, that the intent of the US re this matter, is not wholesome, regardless of whether or not you provide a map of whats supposed to happen Agro

cheers T2.

Poirot, you haven’t bothered to carefully read what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that “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” or indeed anything that could be construed that way.

Nowhere has the UK threaten to invade the Embassy. All they did was write a letter to the Ambassador pointing out that if the Embassy is used for non-diplomatic purposes, the UK has the right under law to remove the accreditation of the embassy. Whether the UK would go down this route is unlikely.

Reading judgement of the extradition hearing, which I have linked to would show that Assange is not wanted for ‘questioning’. The Swedish prosecutors consider there is sufficient evidence that charges are probable.

Belly, I am pointing out with links to legal opinions where the evidence sits. There is a lot of nonsense being written. People are entitled to hold whatever opinions they like. They are not entitled to their own set of facts. So where is the evidence that the US have held pre-trial meetings to convict Assange?

The case of Bradley Manning is very different. He stole classified documents to which he had official access and passed them on to another person. That is not covered by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Thinker 2. Yes many people in America have expressed their thoughts on this. Legally, they have no power to act against Assange yet, so it is simply all posturing. There is a large gulf between what people might like to do and what the law will allow them to do.

It is only prudent for Australian Foreign Affairs examine the prospect of Assange being extradited to the US – after all he is an Australian citizen and they may be called in to offer consular assistance if he is extradited. The US hasn’t made a legal attempt to extradite Assange over the past 2 years, so why would they start now? What new evidence has arisen?

Agronomist,

While I agree that much conjecture abounds, it really does stretch the bounds of reason to ignore the conveniently cooked-up case against Assange in Sweden...just my opinion, of course.

The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister appeared to consider that a threat to arrest Assange inside the embassy had been made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

"At a news in Quito on Wednesday, Ecuador's Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, said a letter from the UK government had been delivered through a British embassy official.
"Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange", he said"

This thread begs the question:

Who would you rather be, Salman Rushdie or Julian Assange.

I go Rushdie because the American administration are terrorists.

Agro, my thanks for that Poirot it is brilliant!
Research you subject, it is no secrete a grand jury has been empaneled.
A pre cursor to charges in America.
It seems only the uninterested can find no reason to fear America, maybe Britain, and my ALP government want to put him on trial.
What is in the public interest? did those who uncovered and wrote about Water Gate commit treason?
The America press who first told us of CIA involvement mass murder in Chile? traitors?
At what point has the citizens of any country got the right to know what its government is doing in their name?
Did we have the right to now what America did in the 1970,s in this country.
NO! I am not anti America!
But this matter until fixed measures that country along side Chine, Russia] Pussy Riot] and the people we claim to be better than.
Is America Democratic? this test may answer that in the next year.

Quote "no secrete a grand jury has been empaneled." If every one knew about it it would not be a secret VERY few would know about it. The world would only find out when he was in a country America could get him from easily.
They denied all the torture in Iraq until the photos were published in the press, they even had the photos but denied it.
America has as much credibility as the labor Government NO carbon tax.