Most of what you've said comes across as excuses for a man who is beginning to look like a right bastard. It's not some minor shoplifting offence he's wanted to answer questions about, it's rape. And what Dan said - if you were wanted to answer questions over a possible rape charge, you'd be arrested and questioned. The police wouldn't be following you all over the world in order to get answers, they'd get the local lot to grab you and you'd be extradited.
It appears to me that his excuse for not doing what anyone else would be expected to do is that wiki leaks is too important in terms of free speech and open-ness and that he should somehow be treated differently. That's complete rubbish, he's an individual and nobody's that important. I absolutely support the concept of free speech and whistle blowing when it's needed but this person is coming across as a knob. If he was (a) that sure he was innocent and (b) missing his family as much as he claims, he'd deal with it.
How can they possibly keep the promise when there is now law for them to do so? Bitch about there not being one by all means, but there's no pre-emptive way to say "That person can't be extradited" - do you not see the huge potential for abuse?
It's one thing to have the legal arguments once the extradition request is made, but I really don't' see how it could possibly work before hand?
It's acting outside of the law because there are no laws to govern this. I don't that it's illegal, just untested and not legislated for.
I kind of agree with your last sentence, but it's very much a grey area - especially with more modern crimes. I'm not completely against Assange and I do think the US extradition treaties have some major issues, namely that their hugely biased and one sided - but it's still kind of a side point as one hasn't been made.
Alternatively, you could state why you think that and we could have some kind of meaningful debate on a very sensitive and important topic, hopefully widening understandings and making the world (at least the very small corners that Teh touches) a slightly better place to exist.
Or we could shut down debate because OMG RAPE.
>>It appears to me that his excuse for not doing what anyone else would be expected to do is that wiki leaks is too important in terms of free speech and open-ness and that he should somehow be treated differently. That's complete rubbish, he's an individual and nobody's that important.
It would seem that there is a genuine risk of him ending up in the States if he returned to Sweden, which would be reason enough for any sane person to want to stay away.
As others have stated, he has offered to be interviewed in London and the Ecuadorian embassy, and although that's not 'normal' procedure it's certainly doable - I'm pretty sure I read about the Swedes interviewing a suspected murderer in a foreign country, but can't see the link just now.
I think he should be treated differently because of the Wikileaks connection and the very real possibility of political persecution because of that.
There are plenty of cases where things have been done out with the normal procedure for a court because of the potential political consequences for the individuals involved - for instance we went as far as setting up a Scottish law court in the Netherlands to try Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am 103.