This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday.
Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.
I don't even think that question matters. The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange? If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't. The suggestion that Sweden is so corrupt that it can't handle basic criminal law is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. No evidence has been presented to support it, at all.
The rest of the argument is to my ears just fever talk. Some US muckity muck said Assange should be killed? Ok. I won't vote for that moron. There are also US politicians who believe we should have nuked Iraq. There was never any real risk that we we going to fire nuclear weapons at a 3rd world country. Random politicians say all sorts of idiotic things. Thankfully, they cannot suspend criminal law as a result.
Of course it matters. If the answer to the question you were asked - and evaded - is yes, then the answer to your question is pretty much automatically no.
The suggestion that Sweden can't handle basic criminal law when they have political motivations for their actions has been well demonstrated by the fact that Swedish police have in the past violated Swedish law and international treaties by handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA without due process. In fact, without any process at all. In order for them to be shipped off to be tortured.
I don't begrudge you your right to care about this stuff, but I don't. At all. If there's a legitimate rape charge leveled in Sweden against Assange, or the Dalai Lama, or bassist Roman Glyck of 80s hair metal sensation Jackyl, I think extradition is a reasonable course of action.
So all China needs is for a Chinese woman to claim the Dalai Lama raped her in China, and China can demand the Dalai Lama be extradited to China! Brilliant!
You are just circling around now. If the rape charge is politically motivated, then it is not legitimate. So the question of whether or not this case is politically motivated remain.
Of course this is ignoring the fact there is no rape charge as of yet.
Whether or not the rape investigation is politically motivated or not is irrelevant, it must still be investigated. And part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
In reality, the investigation will most likely be dropped since they don't seem to have any evidence and it's their words against his.
> part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
If this is politically motivated, Sweden wants Assange in their jurisdiction to extradite him -- which seems plausible given that Sweden refuses to interview Assange over phone or in the UK. Does that seem normal to you? To have a suspect extradited for "interviewing"?
> The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange?
No that's not the question, because 1) Assange has not been charged with anything and 2) Sweden has been offered the chance to question him in the UK (as they did in a murder case involving a trip to Serbia for questioning), or alternatively question him in Sweden, but guarantee that he will not be extradited to a third country. That they've refused all offers is a clear indication that their primary motive is not quick resolution of this particular case.
> If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't.
The UK denied an extradition request for the Chilean dictator Pinochet, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of public record. "'If they can' the UK 'must' honor its extradition treaty" is a statement that doesn't seem to say much at all.
Also, considering this situation involves the West's most famous dissident, it is important to consider all actions and irregularities in a more considered light. The issuing of the Interpol notice was highly irregular, Sweden's actions were highly political, and the Supreme Court's final consideration of the legality of the request was found to be wrong by the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law:
The Supreme Court wrongly, and without any analysis, assumed that VCLT Article 31(3)(b) is applicable in the interpretation of secondary European acts such as the Framework Decision. It also neglected to look into the interpretative rules of the EU. The result was a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court. [1]
Does a law journal's opinion take legal precedence over the final decision of a Supreme court? Of course not. Does Assange's status as a Western dissident absolve him from any transgressions? Of course not. But the totality of these highly irregular and unusual actions demonstrate a clear pattern of political persecution. The naive political / legal reduction of this case that some undertake just seems like wilful ignorance.
Is absolutely matters. If Sweden picks and chooses which rapists to prosecute based on how wanted they are in the US then they have 0 credibility. Beyond that, I imagine if Ecuador allowed him to be extradited to Sweden he would immediately be extradited to the US, which is why the logic that he is being extradited for rape charges is ridiculous. This is the most blatantly politically motivated thing I've ever seen. How people are naive enough to consider every possibility except for that kind of amazes me.
It shouldn't matter Consider the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape allegetaion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn). It was widely claimed that Sarkozy was behind this, it was public lynching for the presidential candidate, etc. Although this may or may not be true, the question remains: Did he or did he not engage in nonconsensual sexual acts with the hotel maid. The political motivation is irrelevant in this regard, and should be investigated and discussed separately.
I don't know the particulars of the rape allegations against Assange (nor do I care); however, automatically dismissing them because of hos other involvements seems to me wrong.
Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.