US intends to chase Assange, cables show.

There's a few facts that are invariably left out in most articles on this subject. Assuage is not wanted by Swedish authorities to be charged with rape but to be interviewed in a preliminary investigation to determine if the evidence is sufficient to charge and proceed to trial. Extradition is sought to conduct interviews and questioning.

Assuage has repeatedly offered to make himself available in England for those interviews. He has offered to return to Sweden for questioning if Sweden guaranteed he would not be extradited to the US. Sweden has rejected all offers by Assuage to deal with the rape allegations if separated from his fears of extradition to the US. I've seen several affidavits by Swedish legal experts including a former Swedish prosecutor that there is no legal or rational reason not to interview Assuage in England or grant him diplomatic immunity from US extradition requests so he can respond to the rape allegations. Therefore it is reasonable to have suppose that there is more going on here than a simple rape investigation. Its reasonable to suspect the extradition request for the rape investigation may be designed to force Assuage to submit to extradition to the US for trial over the wikileak of the Manning documents.

There were also several irregularities in the initial investigation in Sweden. Assuages name was released by the first prosecutor to the public while Swedish law requires that names of both victims and suspects in rape investigation be kept secret. This prosecutor has not been sanctioned or disciplined. This is prosecutorial misconduct and smacks of a smear campaign.

Assuage was interviewed in Sweden, after the completion of that investigation the chief prosecutor overruled a low ranking prosecutor and dismissed the case stating there was no reason to suspect Assuage had raped the women who reported him to the police. The case was then reopened by a different department of the government. Swedish law requires the suspect be interviewed within seven days. The new prosecutor made no attempt to interview Assuage even though he remained in Sweden for an additional 27 days and made numerous attempts to submit to police questioning by this new prosecutor.

Rape is a serious crime that should be prosecuted if sufficient evidence supported prosecution but there are some serious irregularities in the investigation that cause me to wonder if this is about rape or the leak of US documents by Manning. Assuage should answer those rape charges but he should not be forced into a position of surrendering to US extradition to do so.

The transcript for Monday's State Dept. press briefing is now up, here is the relevant excerpt::

[....]

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah, sorry, there was --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. NULAND: Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: WikiLeaks.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Of course there is – you spoke about this a little bit last week. Over the weekend, Julian Assange has made a somewhat public appearance. WikiLeaks has been calling for the U.S. to make assurances that he wouldn’t be extradited or prosecuted here. I know you spoke a little bit to that last week, but is there something clearer? Is there something more that the U.S. can say about the possibility of prosecution of Julian Assange here?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me start with the fact that he is making all kinds of wild assertions about us, when, in fact, his issue with the Government of the United Kingdom has to do with whether he’s going to go stand – face justice in Sweden for something that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks. It has to do with charges of sexual misconduct. So he is clearly trying to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is whether he’s going to face justice in Sweden, which is the immediate issue. So that case has nothing to do with us. It’s a matter between the U.K., Sweden, and now Ecuador has inserted itself.

With regard to where we are in our own judicial issues following the WikiLeaks incident, I’m going to send you to the Department of Justice. I don’t have anything new to add from here.

QUESTION: Can I just – you’re – you want to go back and qualify something, I think, because otherwise the WikiLeaks people are going to come down on you like a pound of – many pounds of bricks.

MS. NULAND: Well, thank you for protecting me, Matt. I depend on that.

QUESTION: Yeah. Which is that you said that he faces charges in Sweden, when he hasn’t been charged.

MS. NULAND: Well, he’s being investigated in Sweden. Right.

QUESTION: Right. So, I mean, the issue is not whether he is going to go to face charges in Sweden. The issue is whether he’s going to be extradited for questioning, at the moment, correct?

MS. NULAND: Excellent. Thank you, Matt. Yes.

QUESTION: And now, have you had any – considering you think that his claim of fear – the claim that he fears persecution in the U.S. is completely bogus, have you had any conversations with the Ecuadorians about this?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we have not, beyond what we’ve said at the OAS, which is that we don’t think that this is an appropriate issue for the OAS to be taking up. But I don’t think we’ve been trying to negotiate this with them bilaterally, because there’s really nothing to say.

QUESTION: No, I know. But, I mean, have you gone into them and said, “Hey, listen, this is ridiculous. He’s not going to be persecuted. People aren’t persecuted in the United States in perhaps the same way that they might be in a country like Ecuador or Venezuela”?

MS. NULAND: Well, I certainly said that he didn’t face any persecution here, thanks to your question on Thursday. But to my knowledge, we’ve not had bilateral consultations. But we have said at the OAS, where Ecuador is trying to gin up trouble, that we don’t think that’s an appropriate forum.

QUESTION: Well, in fact, what was going on at the OAS wasn’t really trying to – I don’t – not sure it was trying to gin up trouble. It really didn’t have anything to do with the particulars of the Assange case. It had to do with the threat that was made – the apparent threat that was made about revoking the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and for – and entering it. You don’t think that the OAS – that a multilateral diplomatic body is the appropriate place to bring up a question that deals intrinsically with diplomatic status and diplomatic immunity?

MS. NULAND: We’ve said consistently this is a matter for Ecuador and the UK to talk to each other about. That’s what the U.K. Government is also saying. And we have said regularly at the OAS that we don’t see any role for the OAS in this.

QUESTION: But you don’t think that standing up for a fellow member of the OAS, who’s a country – that their diplomatic property may be compromised, that that’s not something – that that is appropriate for the OAS to stick up for?

MS. NULAND: Again, we have --

QUESTION: I mean, I remember you guys were all in favor of the OAS sticking up for you during the Cuban missile crisis.

MS. NULAND: Again, we --

QUESTION: Why is not the appropriate forum to say, no, it’s wrong for a country to threaten to raid a diplomatic property?

MS. NULAND: Again, I would call you to more recent statements from the U.K. Government with regard to its stand with regard to the mission in Ecuador. And again, we’re not going to have an – we don’t see a role for the OAS in a hypothetical situation that doesn’t appear to be imminent anyway.

QUESTION: Okay. So your understanding right now is that there is no threat to raid the Ecuadorian Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m going to refer you to what the UK has said in the last couple of days.

QUESTION: So are you not concerned that the Assange issue may be a polarizing issue between countries that are otherwise allies?

MS. NULAND: We have very important business that we do in the OAS that has to do with the strength and health and democracy in the region, and this is, frankly, a sideshow.

Okay. Please, can I get your colleague in the back? Please.

QUESTION: North Korea [....]