What is Going on With Julian Assange?

EDIT: I am including this Link  because it provides a reasonable description of of what Assange faces in Sweden and a little about the Swedish Justice system

As I write this Julian Assange is living in the Ecuadorian Embassy. He has been give asylum by Ecuador. Assange took up residence there on June 19, 2012 after losing his appeal to avoid extradition to Sweden.

There is confusion over whether Julian Assange has been charged with rape or accused of rape by Swedish authorities. I found this from the Guardian describing the allegations. Whether he is wanted for questioning or prosecution. BBC news provides a timeline of events surrounding Assange.

At this point what I know is that Julian Assange was accused of rape. He is wanted in Sweden to either answer questions and/or faces charges and prosecution. He refused to return to Sweden and so faced an extradition proceeding. He lost all court challenges and must now surrender to authorities and return to Sweden. He fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy, sought and was granted asylum. The UK government does not recognize the grant of asylum and wants him turned over. Ecuador refused, they now face the potential of having their diplomatic status revoked, allowing the UK government to enter the embassy and apprehend Assange.

Is this case about an accused man fleeing to a foreign country to avoid charges and prosecution? Some have likened the Assange case to that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, he was removed from a plane and charged with rape, later the charges were withdrawn. I guess the comparison suggested is that both men tried to flee the scene one successfully the other not so much. ( Assange was granted leave to exit Sweden,so flight may be to strong a word). DSK had he left on that plane would have faced the same proceedings as Assange, charges proffered and extradition sought. I presume Stauss-Kahn would have opposed extradition. If Stauss-Kahn had then lost his case it is assumed he would have surrendered himself to authorities and been placed on a plane to New York. It is also unlikely that Stauss-Kahn would have high tailed it to an Embassy of any sort and to seek asylum or for that matter found an Embassy willing to grant it. Assange was also entitled to oppose extradition, had his day in court, lost and now must obey he law. His flight to the Ecuadorian Embassy and them granting of asylum is therefore untenable as it subverts the ruling of a fair legal proceeding.

For some the cases are similar enough to shout foul. Why is Assange being treated differently? At this point the Right/Left divide makes an appearance, sides will be chosen , even when it is not a question of side but of law and its application. Strauss-Kahn was reviled as a person of wealth and privilege, abusing the weak and powerless directly in the person of a hotel maid. The Right suggested this might be a witch hunt, a "get the rich guy".

With Assange, the sides have switched. Those on the Right see it as a flight from prosecution and the Left an attempt to railroad the Hero of wiki leaks. The charges facing Strauss-Kahn and Assange are similar but the circumstance surrounding both men are not. Assange while not officially wanted in the United States on charges related to Wiki Leaks, he is certainly a person they would be happy to have land in New York. (To be fair it is suggested that the charges against Strauss-Kahn were fabricated to ruin his potential political career. This accusation seems more opinion than fact based. Yes the rape accusation derailed a bid to run for President of France. I will note that Strauss-Kahn is not a stranger to sex related accusations.)

Assange's refusal to comply with the Court's decision hinges on his belief that once extradited to Sweden he with be vulnerable to extradition to the USA. In fact he and his supporters go as far as to say the whole case has been manufactured to engineer this exact outcome. Their is no evidence of this. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" might be the reply. The UK, Sweden and the USA have all said that nothing of the sort is in the works. It is they maintain a simple case of flight from prosecution and an attempt to repatriate an accused to answer for the charges against him.

Except for one thing, Wiki Leaks.  America was really embarrassed by wiki leaks if not actually harmed by it,( that too is up for discussion). Rumours of a secret Grand Jury empanelled to hear the case against Assange. As it is a secret there can't be any verification. So round we go again. It is not unreasonable that the USA would ask for extradition of Julian Assange at a later date. That is the pin about which everything has revolved. Assange has not gone to all this trouble to merely avoid a just hearing in Sweden but to avoid the USA. Then again if he has been motivated solely to avoid prosecution he has been abetted by the very governments who have sought him. He sought guarantees that he would not be extradited to to America, no were given. He had asked Sweden to send prosecutors to England, this is not without precedence where he would happily answer questions, this was refused.

I believe that Assange must answer for the charges made against him. No person must be allowed to flout the a just legal proceeding. Neither the UK, Sweden nor the USA can be considered to have a corrupt judiciary. Real or imagined fear of American prosecution is a central theme in this affair. Therefore it is reasonable under these specific circumstances that Assange be guaranteed that he won't end up in an American cell. I don't think this is an extraordinary request. Further it will allow the case against Assange to proceed and justice, if guilt is ascertained, for the victims.