But then... is he really fearing for his life? Is it really about him knowing secrets or him trying to avoid the rape charges in Sweden?
Ecuador granted asylum not to shield Assange from justice in Sweden, but to prevent the US from using the Swedish case as an avenue to extradite him to the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosec...
He couldn't be charged without first being arrested. That's why Sweden issued the EAW.
From the original ruling on the EAW (p. 20):
>Here is it necessary to focus clearly on the facts of the case. Clear and specific serious allegations have been made against Mr Assange in Sweden. Attempts have been made by the Swedish prosecutor as long ago as September to interview him. He has not been interviewed. The Swedish system anticipates detention and early questioning in allegations of this type, but this has not taken place. Mr Assange is not known to have returned to Sweden since September. I have no doubt that this defendant is wanted for prosecution in Sweden. On the information before me I cannot say when or what step was taken that can fairly be described as the commencement of a prosecution. What I can say is that the boundary between suspicion and preliminary enquiries on the one hand, and prosecution on the other, has been crossed. It may be that after interrogation and further enquiries the matter will not be pursued. As Ms Ny says, a formal decision to charge is taken at a later stage in Sweden than it is here. In this jurisdiction a person can be charged with rape or sexual assault by a custody sergeant and may then wait many months before the case is discontinued. In Sweden the decision to formally charge is followed very shortly by the trial itself, if the defendant is in custody.
I find it odd that you don't understand this, but the point is very simple: if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. Instead they refused to.
I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.
To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed?
You surely know this - my general feeling at this point is you're simply asking questions to antagonise anyone who disagrees with you. Hacker News needs a block function.
> More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.
Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.
Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.
The reason that they needed to interview Assange was so that they could proceed to arrest him and charge him. That is why the EAW was issued. The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right.
>Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.
How is that any concern of the Swedish prosecutor? It's not their problem if the US tries to extradite Assange. (There is, of course, no evidence that the US is going to do this beyond Assange's paranoid fantasies.)
>Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.
It's actually pretty common for rape victims to remain on more-or-less friendly terms with the people who raped them. (You can see a similar phenomenon with domestic abuse.)
No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit. The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime (although in this case the victim made statements saying they didn't wish Assange to be charged).
> Assange's paranoid fantasies
By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with?
Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases.
No, it wasn't. See e.g. the quote from the Magistrates' court judgment above.
>The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime
The Swedish prosecutor had a strong presumption in favor of arresting and charging Assange in this instance, as the court judgments make clear. That was on the basis of the evidence already available.
You may not be taking into account differences between the Swedish and US/UK justice systems. Formal charges are brought much later in the Swedish system, as the court judgments explain. The investigation into Assange had proceeded to a stage where charges would most likely already have been filed in the US or UK. The investigation was well beyond the stage where they would have wanted merely to talk to Assange.
>By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with?
Clinton has no power to extradite Assange. It doesn't matter what she says.
>Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases
As I said, it is not uncommon for people who are raped to remain on friendly terms with their rapists. The fact that they were not in a LTR doesn't change that.
It was a trumped-up allegation. The timing and nature of it alone should have raised flags. Whatever truth there is to it does not warrant the diplomatic circus this has become.
You’re quite callously dismissing two womens’ rape allegations.
Whether their claims have any merit or not is not for me to say, but how many other womens' rape allegations result in an international extradition effort...just for questioning?
The government wanted him already. Now they had a reason to bring him in, by making a bigger deal out of allegations they would otherwise ignore.
Then you add the prexisting desire to nab him, but only then.