Oh, look. Assange did a squishy-soft, sycophantic interview with Rafael Correa on RT TV, just as he recently did with Hassan Nasrallah, who shamelessly shilled for Bashar Assad. Trying to butter up el presidente for an asylum bid, are we Julian? Maybe he can get a post in the propaganda department...

Yes, Britain is more likely to extradite Julian Assange to the U.S., but it has no excuse to do so at present.
Yes, Sweden is officially neutral, but its political posture, as with Switzerland, is increasingly pro-American.
After all, there is no Communist bloc opposing the Germanic plutocracies, so there is no in-between position left to take.
There are just those countries which will do what America says and those which will not - that last a dwindling group.

As everyone but you and a microscopic group of self-marginalized radicals can see, the case against Assange in Sweden is entirely political.
Even the prosecutor had dropped the case due to lack of evidence and then roared back with new charges later - after America declared Assange to be an enemy.
The situation is exactly analogous to the one in which Ken Starr had announced that he was abandoning the investigation into the Clintons for lack of evidence and leaving to take up the presidency of Pepperdine University.
The next DAY he called a press conference and, in a thoroughly dazed demeanor, announced that he was changing his mind and would continue to pursue the Clintons.
It couldn't have been more obvious that he had been told in, no uncertain terms, that he'd better get something on Billy boy or he and his family could kiss whatever career plans they had goodbye.

Even if you think Assange is an international, serial rapist, it should worry you that the U.S. can accuse a man of spying and then put enough pressure on other countries - including a man's homeland - that he becomes a stateless person.
All this even though Assange did not set foot in America.
So, simply revealing American secrets - remotely and without intending to profit or to turn said secrets over to another government - is now a crime anywhere in the world.
That's returning to the doctrine of extraterritoriality with a vengence.

If Assange goes to Sweden to face the trumped up charges, then he faces at least an unfair prosecution.
The likely result of an unfair prosection is an unfair verdict.
After that, he's be given the 'choice' of a prison sentence in Sweden or 'voluntarily' returning to Australia, where he may well be extradicted to the U.S.A.
In light of all the foregoing, what do you expect Assange to do?
Should he spit in the face of one of the few refuges he may have?
Were I in his position I would take any refuge I could get.

Finally, I find it INSUFFERABLE that you and a few others throw brick bats at a man for ideological incorrectness when he faces police, courts, prisons, and impoverishment for embarrassing our imperial rulers while you sit in comfort.
When you piss off our rulers and take the heat from them and show what a courageous and die-for-your-principles person YOU are, THEN you can criticize Assange!

From day one, i was deeply disturbed by the manner in which Assange dealt with the rape charges. Given the fact that rape is epidemic globally and femicide, the targeted sexualized killing of women because they are women, is escalating at such a rate that Eve Ensler, author of the Vagina Monologues and incredible voice for the relatives of femicided women all over the earth, has said women are on the way to extinction, i felt Assange could have courageously faced those charging him with rape displaying to the world what a true eaglitarian would do if such charges were indeed false. Instead i was forced to endure Naomi "shoots herself in the right wingish foot" Wolf defending Assange while a rather inept anti rapist activist failed miserably to articulate what really needed to be done on Democracy Now! Made me wish i had the fame and fortune to be invited to respond to the whole debacle.

I am so disgusted with unaddressed rapes in occupy camps; with the ongoing virulent sexism among so called leftists; and the failure all around to effectively integrate the seriously life and death issues facing women and all extremely marginalized peoples into struggles for justice these days that i fear the looming doom has the upper hand.

Never liked Assange and never will. Something smells off here.

Thanks Bill for your never ending astuteness.

Why not ask basic questions like (1) Why did Assange remove Namir's photograph of the Humvee from his website? (2) Why did he cut forty-five seconds from the long version to make the short version? (3) Why did he say the van, seen at the beginning of the long version, and the so-called "rescue van" are not one in the same vehicle?