> " Assange has a case to answer " states: " he refuses to answer the allegations of rape and sexual assault he is accused of commiting. "

>>> which would be bullshit.
Pure heresay. You have zero evidence it is bullshit and that would never stand up in court. Plus you are neither qualified or authorised to make any decisions regarding the case.


>>> ...Sources at the embassy told Press Association that an approach was made to the authorities in Sweden last Wednesday, offering them the chance to interview Assange about the allegations, but it had been turned down, without any reason being given."

The reason being that if they put all their cards on the table and Assange saw a solid case against him, his lawyers would advise him to never leave the embassy. The police would be irresponsible to conduct an interview without the power of being able to arrest him on the outcome of the interview.


>>> So, why despite calls from Amnesty, won't Sweden give the assurance that they won't extradite Assange?
Why should they? There is zero reason they have to give this assurance.



>> Yup cos he's been charged and found guilty, right?
No, you are deliberately trying to obstruct an investigation into rape, which makes you a supporter of rapists.


>>> I assume 'peering under the bridge' is also another.....
apologist for the child raping Catholic Church ie the Catholic pedophile society?

Some people might find that version offensive.


>> I'd take my chances in the bourgeois courts rather than your type of 'social justice' any day Mr. Cade.

No one put Mr. Cade in charge of handing out justice. He is a nobody with a big mouth. Words come out, but they are unimportant and can be safely ignored as he neither has the authority or the power to do anything.

the only way you can do or achieve something? Allows you to rape women and abuse kids?

You sad muppet!

'the people' wrote: "Pure heresay. You have zero evidence it is bullshit and that would never stand up in court. Plus you are neither qualified or authorised to make any decisions regarding the case. "

And you are qualified or authorised? It seems to be fact that Sweden could have interviewed Assange by now.

In Februrary 2011 Assanges lawyer's stated: "The application for a warrant is "disproportionate" as he is willing to co-operate and be interviewed by phone, e-mail or videolink"
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12379018

That would be be before the Ecuadorian authorities offered to allow Sweden to interview Assange in the London Embassy. He could also have been interviewed whilst in Wandsworth. Had the interview taken place and charges been laid then his lawyers would not have been able to argue that: "The Swedes are guilty of an "abuse of process" as they have not demonstrated any intention to charge or prosecute Mr Assange" (bbc link above)

'the people wrote' : "The reason being that if they put all their cards on the table and Assange saw a solid case against him, his lawyers would advise him to never leave the embassy. The police would be irresponsible to conduct an interview without the power of being able to arrest him on the outcome of the interview. "

Are you a cop? If there is a rock-solid case then why haven't charges been laid already? What indications are there that he does plan to leave the Embassy?

Your answer doesn't really clarify anything.

'the people' wrote: "Why should they? There is zero reason they have to give this assurance. "

Well, you apparently have more authority than Amnesty on the matter:
_____________________________________________________
"In a statement, Nicola Duckworth, Amnesty's senior director for research, said: "If the Swedish authorities are able to confirm publicly that Assange will not eventually find himself on a plane to the USA if he submits himself to the authority of the Swedish courts then this will hopefully achieve two things.

"First, it will break the current impasse and second it will mean the women who have levelled accusations of sexual assault are not denied justice.

"It is vital that states show they are serious about dealing with allegations of sexual violence and that they respect both the rights of the women who made the complaints and the person accused."
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19749931
________________________________________________________

If all Sweden is interested in is the pursuit of justice on behalf of the alleged victims - then it should interview him as soon as possible - and shouldn't allow the possibility of extradition to the USA to get in the way of that, surely? Anyway - despite your claim of zero reason - Nicola Duckworth offers two.

'the people' wrote: "No, you are deliberately trying to obstruct an investigation into rape, which makes you a supporter of rapists."

I don't believe that the man is guilty until due process has taken place. Which clearly hasn't happened yet. Your brand of 'social justice' Appears to be just as putrid as Mr Cades.

Can you make it clear how am I deliberately trying to obstruct the investigation? I'm not connected to Assange, the Ecuadorian Embassy or Sweden. And then perhaps you can clarify how thinking a man is entitled to a trial before being found guilty makes me a "supporter of rapists."

'the people' wrote: "No one put Mr. Cade in charge of handing out justice. He is a nobody with a big mouth. Words come out, but they are unimportant and can be safely ignored as he neither has the authority or the power to do anything."

You give us no clues as to how you have the 'authority or the power to do anything' - so I guess you too can be safely ignored.

In the meantime I maintain that The Swedish authorities should interview Assange as quickly as possible - if that is what they need to do before laying charges. If the caser is as watertight as you suggest then why not just charge him?

>> And you are qualified or authorised? It seems to be fact that Sweden could have interviewed Assange by now.
No im not. I think that's up to Sweden. Not you.

>> Are you a cop? If there is a rock-solid case then why haven't charges been laid already? What indications are there that he does plan to leave the Embassy?
1) No - but it seems i can think better as one than you.
2) Because "if" there was a strong case, Assange's lawyer would know from the interview and then would say "Do not ever leave the Embassy unless you want to spend the next 20 years in jail". Not a very clever way of catching criminals. If you are a cop - you don't tell someone you got a cast-iron case against them, unless you can arrest them - otherwise they will scarper and you will never catch them.
3) Indications are that there is a continued negotiation. There is no rush.


>> Your answer doesn't really clarify anything.
It does now. If you still fail to understand, then don't bother. Its pretty obvious.

>> If all Sweden is interested in is the pursuit of justice on behalf of the alleged victims - then it should interview him as soon as possible - and shouldn't allow the possibility of extradition to the USA to get in the way of that, surely? Anyway - despite your claim of zero reason - Nicola Duckworth offers two.
1) What if sweden made this promise, and then the USA revealed information that put sweden into the position where they had to extradite him under their own laws? Sweden can't make this 'promise' - because they cannot know if they can keep it.
2) Breaking the current impasse - the current negotiations will work too.
3) Woman will not be denied justice. Assauge is denying them justice, not the swedes.
4) The swedish government should not be dictated to. They should dictate to the suspect.

>> 'the people' wrote: "No, you are deliberately trying to obstruct an investigation into rape, which makes you a supporter of rapists."
I don't believe that the man is guilty until due process has taken place. Which clearly hasn't happened yet.
Agreed. Nor do i

>> Your brand of 'social justice' Appears to be just as putrid as Mr Cades.
I have not handed out any justice. I said you are trying to obstruct an "investigation", not "justice". Learn to read. Then learn to comprehend sentences. Then learn to use your brain.


>> Can you make it clear how am I deliberately trying to obstruct the investigation? I'm not connected to Assange, the Ecuadorian Embassy or Sweden. And then perhaps you can clarify how thinking a man is entitled to a trial before being found guilty makes me a "supporter of rapists."
By writing on here telling the Swedish what they can and can't and should be doing.
You are trying to prevent the Swedish authorities do what they want to do.
We both think a man is entitled to a trial before being found guity.
You support rapists by saying that a man suspected or rape should be interviewed with no chance of taking him into custody. You are putting the odds is his favour - which means you are supporting a man who is suspected of rape, which means you are a supporter of rapists.

>> 'the people' wrote: "No one put Mr. Cade in charge of handing out justice. He is a nobody with a big mouth. Words come out, but they are unimportant and can be safely ignored as he neither has the authority or the power to do anything."
You give us no clues as to how you have the 'authority or the power to do anything' - so I guess you too can be safely ignored.

I have no authority or power. I am simply telling you that you have no authority or power to order the Swedish government with your demands.

>> In the meantime I maintain that The Swedish authorities should interview Assange as quickly as possible
You have no authority to order the Swedish authorities.

>> - if that is what they need to do before laying charges.
Yes, it is what they are trying to do.

>> If the caser (sic) is as watertight as you suggest then why not just charge him?
Because they want to interview him. They have made this clear. They have not said they want to charge him.