Sorry, guess I didn't read it properly. I know I'd rather he wasn't in Britain, and I do agree that he should have the courtesy at least of being questioned by one jurisdiction without fear of extradition to another for the time being, but all this country-hopping is a bit of a farce and confuses things. Whose judicial system is he supposed to be obeying when he's hacked US systems (an offence regardless), wanted for questioning in Sweden and is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in England? It's like something out of a satirical sketch show.

I am all for transparency. But I do believe that there would have been a better way to do it. I understand what you're saying about the government, they should be more transparent and Wikileaks wouldn't be necessary. I suppose they underestimated the power of technology and I hope governments worldwide keep one step ahead from now on. 

Except you know.   Sweden DID explicity assure this.

"Sweden does not extradite individuals who risk facing the death penalty," a Swedish Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said, implicitly referring to the possibility Assange could be charged with crimes eligible for the death penalty in the United States, with whom it has an extradition agreement.

Any claims to the contrary are pure bull.

Well, that's implicit, not explicit.

And that's not really an assurance that he wouldn't be extradited to the US at all. It just means that Sweden would first want assurances that he wouldn't face the death penalty - which he wouldn't in all likelihood, anyway.

Being that deep throat was Mark Felt and likely acted leaked the information on watergate because Nixon didn't make him FBI director and not for ethical reasons (being that his career is full of acts of questionable ethics) it is the perfect example of what I am talking about ... He leaked information not because he thought the Watergate breakin was wrong but because the leaking of infomation would benefit him personally.

If they assured it in the press, I'm sure they would personally, even though the whole thing is a joke anyway.

Afterall the UK-US extradition treaty is heavily favors the US in pretty much getting anyone in Britian they want.

While Sweden actually has plenty of room to refuse.

Between the UK and Sweeden, Assange is safer from the US in Sweeden.

He just stayed in the UK because he had rich friends there and it's safer to avoid charges of rape.

And now he's asking for asylum from one of the countries in the world where there is about ZERO freedom and speech and trasnperancy?

Why?  He knows they have a problem with the UK, and he can play them off the UK, because they would love to thumb their nose at the UK at about anything right now.

It's all a pure bs smoke trail of a guy trying to avoid rape charges.

Agreed.

Well to blow further holes in the nuttery

"The Swedish government has said through its ambassador in Australia that they won't extradite in circumstances that involve intelligence or the military. That they won't extradite where there is no comparable offence in Swedish law, and where there's a capital offence involved. I believe that the government of neutral, democratic, Sweden, a liberal democracy, is not part of some fully blown CIA conspiracy."

Yeah. That sounds rather more ironclad than the other statement, which could have been merely for public consumption. The argument about the UK being more likely to extradite him to the US than Sweden is a pretty strong one, as well.

I prefer that something like Wikileaks exist and makes clearly governments nervous...

I changed my mind. Go Wikileaks, sock it to 'em.

Especially the CIA. Fuck those guys.