|Assange and the Ecuadorean government argue that if he goes to Sweden to face the sexual assault allegations against him, he could be extradited from there to the US to face politically-motivated prosecution. The Sydney Morning Herald has published what it described as declassified US air force counter-intelligence reports which designated Assange and WikiLeaks as "enemies of the United States", the same legal category as al-Qaida and the Taliban.|
|The British government said it is legally obliged to carry out Assange's extradition after the Australian's appeals in the British courts were rejected. It has also said that according to European law, it would not allow extradition to the United States on charges that could result in the death penalty. Patiño argued that the UK's human rights obligations overrode its duty under EU treaty.|
|"The United Kingdom says it defends human rights," Patiño said. "Would it be human to try to keep Mr Assange in the embassy for months or years?" He added that Assange might spend up to 10 years in the embassy "without right to his life or his privacy".|
Here we have the case in a nutshell, the UK is obliged under contract to extradite the EAW as Sweden exhibited. Assange is willing to come to Sweden for a guarantee. Sweden is stuck in legal quagmire and refuses to withdraw the EAW or exhibit warranty. Assange is staying at the Embassy and will continue to cause you trouble. Ecuador is willing to take the case before the International Court of Justice, Human Rights. The pressure is certainly on Sweden to come up with a solution at the moment.
Out with MN, withdraw the EAW, questioning Assange, prosecute or lay down. If he should happen to be prosecuted and sentenced, which at present are less likely to put the heretofore been presented in terms of evidence, it is offset by the time he spent under house arrest. Assange is then free to travel to Ecuador or every reference he wants.
Original Flashback: https://www.flashback.org/sp39547672