Aren't embassies inviolate under international law?

[BwanaBob]

What if Ecuador hired two hundred Assange look-alikes and had them all report to the embassy. and then have them + the real one quickly leave en-masse in different directions.
Do the British have enough manpower waiting there to arrest over a hundred people?

[TruCelt]

Originally Posted by Quercus

. . .
I still believe that, as a general statement about governments worldwide, an incredible level of effort has been put towards Assange compared to Polanski, despite the more serious nature of Polanski's crime.

I agree, but I think it's because of Polanski. There was an enormous amount of outrage once the media made clear how very easy it should have been to bring Polanski to justice sooner. The public at large was horrified once the issue came to light.

[joebuck20]

What if the Ecuadorians gave him a diplomatic passport and an official highfalutin title at the embassy? Would he be able to then claim diplomatic immunity?

[Diceman]

According to a Foxnews.com article I just read, British Foreign Secretary William Hague says that "The United Kingdom does not recognize the principle of diplomatic asylum.''

Sounds like the Brits aren't going to put up with any bullshit on this one.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

What if the Ecuadorians gave him a diplomatic passport and an official highfalutin title at the embassy? Would he be able to then claim diplomatic immunity?

No. In order to have diplomatic immunity, the receiving country has to accept the credentials of the diplomat.

Diplomatic immunity is a shield agreed upon by both the sending and receiving state; not a sword that unwilling governments cannot defend against.

[williambaskerville]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

What if the Ecuadorians gave him a diplomatic passport and an official highfalutin title at the embassy? Would he be able to then claim diplomatic immunity?

See this earlier thread :-

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=655871

Short answer, no. In order for him to have diplomatic immunity, the British would have to accept him as a diplomat, which they won't.

[Omar Little]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

How's he going to get into the car?

From inside the embassy garage, of course.

[aldiboronti]

William Hague has said that the government have no plans to storm the Ecuadorian embassy and that the situation may not be resolved quickly. I get the feeling that Assange is milking this for all its worth and is enjoying the spotlight.

BTW I recall reading that the charge he may be on the hook for in Sweden isn't rape but something called "unprotected consensual sex", which is apparently an assault under Swedish law. It doesn't sound that serious a charge, or am I wrong?

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by aldiboronti

BTW I recall reading that the charge he may be on the hook for in Sweden isn't rape but something called "unprotected consensual sex", which is apparently an assault under Swedish law. It doesn't sound that serious a charge, or am I wrong?

From the wiki:

On appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant on suspicion of rape, olaga tvång (duress/unlawful coercion), and two cases of sexuellt ofredande,[25][26][27][28] which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[29] "sexual assault",[30] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[31][32][19][26][27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange...tion_Authority

I think there's been some confusion because, naturally, some of the Swedish laws don't map exactly to equivalent UK/US ones.

[Elendil's Heir]

Here's more on the Swedish charges against Assange:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6B669H20101207

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Colibri

[Moderator Warning]

MPB in Salt Lake, you've been around long enough to know that political commentary of this kind is inappropriate for GQ. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Was that political commentary?

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

At this point they are harboring a man accused of a criminal act. Oh, wait, he is only wanted for questioning in Sweden. Well, if he had actually been accused of a criminal act by a prosecuting body, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

There is an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Sweden, which I believe has survived a challenge in Swedish court. Realistically in the EU I don't think it's normal at all for one country to just ignore valid arrest warrants from another EU country.

[Martin Hyde]

In theory Ecuador could apparently get him out of the country by getting him into an embassy car (without setting foot on British soil outside the embassy) and then transporting him to a plane. Once there, if he sets foot on the ground to travel from the car to the plane he can be arrested. A few options could get around that, a plane configured to allow a car to drive into it would be one option. They can also smuggle him in a very large diplomatic bag with several men carrying it. Anything in the bag is protected and can't be opened.

What still doesn't make sense to me is:

1. Very little chance in my opinion this results in any significant punishment for Assange under Swedish law.

2. This act will basically mean he can't travel anywhere other than Ecuador for a long time. However long it takes for matters like this to "expire" under Swedish law. (His jumping bail in the UK might be a totally separate violation so that is a concern as well.)

3. During that time he will have to live in Ecuador, which will probably persist for many years versus at worst 12 months or something in a comfy Swedish prison (more likely some rehab "camp" or something.)

Why not just go to Sweden? The claims that Sweden is just waiting to ship him off to the United States is a total red herring and fatuous, Assange hasn't been charged with any crimes in the United States.

[aldiboronti]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

They can also smuggle him in a very large diplomatic bag with several men carrying it. Anything in the bag is protected and can't be opened.

That might not work.

In 1984 there was an attempt to smuggle a Nigerian man from the UK in a so-called "diplomatic bag" protected from inspection. The bag was in fact a large crate - and customs officers successfully intercepted it at the airport.

[Diceman]

Another factor: If this embassy is just an apartment, then is it even possible to get Assange into a car without setting foot on British soil? We might have to resort to action-movie scenarios, like having Assange jump out the window and land on a truck full of matresses (with diplomatic plates, of course), and then drive him to the airport, where he jumps directly into the open door of the plane.

[TATG]

Originally Posted by Diceman

Another factor: If this embassy is just an apartment, then is it even possible to get Assange into a car without setting foot on British soil? We might have to resort to action-movie scenarios,

Or a ridiculously small car.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Why not just go to Sweden? The claims that Sweden is just waiting to ship him off to the United States is a total red herring and fatuous, Assange hasn't been charged with any crimes in the United States.

This page has all the details:
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WUKJA

the tl dr version:
The Stratfor hacked emails leaked last year claimed there is a sealed grand jury indictment against Assange.
Sweden is more likely to release Assange to the US under the temporary release scheme for various reason.

Assange certainly seems to believe all this, which explains his seemingly bizarre action. The treatment of Bradley Manning certainly gives Assange a very good reason to make sure he never gets into the US jurisdiction.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by coremelt

This page has all the details:
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WUKJA

the tl dr version:
The Stratfor hacked emails leaked last year claimed there is a sealed grand jury indictment against Assange.
Sweden is more likely to release Assange to the US under the temporary release scheme for various reason.

Assange certainly seems to believe all this, which explains his seemingly bizarre action. The treatment of Bradley Manning certainly gives Assange a very good reason to make sure he never gets into the US jurisdiction.

That's the basic definition of a conspiracy theorist cite, though. I find the entire idea to be preposterous. The history of the United States suggests Assange probably would not be tried, as I said, unambiguously stolen classified documents were released by persons working in the U.S. government to the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. The government tried to stop publication of the papers, and failed, and then tried to bring criminal charges against the government employees and it was declared a mistrial. They never tried to pursue criminal charges against the journalists. And this was in the Nixon White House, not one that would have been particularly hesitant to try and get the journalists arrested if they thought they could succeed.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

That's the basic definition of a conspiracy theorist cite, though. I find the entire idea to be preposterous. The history of the United States suggests Assange probably would not be tried, as I said, unambiguously stolen classified documents were released by persons working in the U.S. government to the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. The government tried to stop publication of the papers, and failed, and then tried to bring criminal charges against the government employees and it was declared a mistrial. They never tried to pursue criminal charges against the journalists. And this was in the Nixon White House, not one that would have been particularly hesitant to try and get the journalists arrested if they thought they could succeed.

One detail that might change things is that Assange is not a US citizen, I have seen this listed as both a plus and a minus in the case(from Assange's viewpoint).

I believe the fear is that not being a citizen he will be lost to Guantanamo or one of the CIA run black site prisons in the middle east or Europe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1393385.html

[Martin Hyde]

The Atlantic, which is quite simply more reliable than sources like "justice4assange" had a really good article a bout both Stratfor and WikiLeaks some time ago: link.

Basically confirms what I've seen in reading the real news for the past few years. Namely that Stratfor is nothing but a scam company that sells banal corporate research at inflated prices, most of it easily found through internet searches or very low-level "intelligence gathering" abroad. By low-level I mean probably less in-depth than your average overseas journalists goes into when filing a report back home.

Stratfor is a "CIA lite" in its mind and the mind of the gullible only, and it appears Stratfor intentionally promotes such an image. WikiLeaks by and large hasn't done anything important aside from release the helicopter attack video, almost everything else ever released by WikiLeaks actually was already known, irrelevant, or uninteresting.

Julian Assange appears to be a deranged egotist, having taken credit for things like Egypt's revolution against Mubarak and most likely to him he fully believes he is so important that the United States is desperate to apprehend him. The truth is probably that he is not much of a concern at all. Bradley Manning is because he was an enlisted soldier who clearly violated the law, that means he has to be punished, the law he violated was one with extremely stiff penalties so he will most likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

I'll note that given Stratfor's often repeating years-discredit rumors as "fact" and having overseas "intelligence gatherers" who can't even speak the local language in the country they are in and need directions from freelance journalists to get around I find it extremely doubtful they have any access to a sealed grand jury indictment or any ability to even know about one.

[dzeiger]

It occurs to me that even if the US did plan on doing anything with this, Assange's grandstanding has made it much less likely to happen--we're at a point where the UK is having to deny that they're about to storm an embassy to grab someone who's accused of something that seems roughly equivalent to beer goggles, by its nature that looks like so much overkill that they almost have to have sinister motives underneath, so everyone is looking closely for them.

[Saint Cad]

What would happen if the UK simply expelled all of the Equadorian diplomats? Could they then retake the apartment claiming it is no longer an embassy? Or could it be used to capture Assange if he went with the Equadorians?

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Assange hasn't been charged with any crimes in the United States.

Neither have 150 at Gitmo that the US knows are innocent.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Neither have 150 at Gitmo that the US knows are innocent.

Most of those 150 are no longer there (maybe all, hard to say based just on that article), having been released. From your own cite:

There are now just under 180 detainees at the US naval base in Cuba. Most are deemed to pose a high risk threat to the US if released without adequate supervision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13184845 (eta: it doesn't make it OK that they were there, but it's better than them still being there, which your post may have unintentionally implied)

Kind of besides the point, though, since Assange (having not been detained in a war zone or captured in relation to a terrorist plot) wouldn't go anywhere besides a regular old court, jail, whatever.

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

The history of the United States suggests Assange probably would not be tried, as I said, unambiguously stolen classified documents were released by persons working in the U.S. government to the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. The government tried to stop publication of the papers, and failed, and then tried to bring criminal charges against the government employees and it was declared a mistrial. They never tried to pursue criminal charges against the journalists. And this was in the Nixon White House, not one that would have been particularly hesitant to try and get the journalists arrested if they thought they could succeed.

Yet, a reading of more recent U.S. history would suggest that the U.S. government would have no compunction about kidnapping Assange from a foreign country and flying him somewhere to be tortured, without bothering with any legal proceeding (either in the U.S. or the country of kidnapping) at all. Not to mention that the current administration is in fact attempting to bring many cases for revealing information.

Assange may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean nobody is out to get him.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Quercus

Assange may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean nobody is out to get him.

Assange is paranoid, and it's the Swedish judicial system that's out to get him.

[Elendil's Heir]

"Even paranoiacs have enemies." - Henry Kissinger

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

What would happen if the UK simply expelled all of the Equadorian diplomats? Could they then retake the apartment claiming it is no longer an embassy? Or could it be used to capture Assange if he went with the Equadorians?

Yes, and according to NPR, that's one of the approaches now under consideration by the British. Declaring the Ecuadorian ambassador persona non grata, closing the embassy and expelling the staff (and Assange) might do the trick very nicely. He could be arrested the moment he sets foot outside, or the police could go in and nick him once the closure of the embassy took effect.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Kind of besides the point, though, since Assange (having not been detained in a war zone or captured in relation to a terrorist plot) wouldn't go anywhere besides a regular old court, jail, whatever.

Tell that to Maher Arar, the Canadian who was detained by US officials in New York, who then sent him to Syria for a year's worth of torture, without any charges, due process or court authorisation.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Tell that to Maher Arar, the Canadian who was detained by US officials in New York, who then sent him to Syria for a year's worth of torture, without any charges, due process or court authorisation.

Or the asylum seekers Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza, who were tortured after Sweden handed them over to the CIA.

[grude]

How is this whole thing going over politically in Ecuador? I'm not sure how I'd feel as a citizen of a small nation that my government was souring relations and wasting tons of money protecting Assange. I have nothing against Assange, it just seems like a waste of money and relations for Ecuador, where is the national interest?

[Ravenman]

And the US military shot Osama Bin Laden in the head in a nighttime raid in a third country. Clearly, the same thing could happen to Assange in London or Stockholm. Nay, it will definitely happen to Assange... it's happened before!!1!

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by grude

'm not sure how I'd feel as a citizen of a small nation that my government was souring relations and wasting tons of money protecting Assange.

Are they? It's not like an airbed and food for one person is that expensive, and I assume the diplomatic contingent are drawing a salary for their time in Britain whether or not they're actually doing anything at the moment.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by grude

How is this whole thing going over politically in Ecuador? I'm not sure how I'd feel as a citizen of a small nation that my government was souring relations and wasting tons of money protecting Assange. I have nothing against Assange, it just seems like a waste of money and relations for Ecuador, where is the national interest?

Here's the Web site for one of Quito's main newspapers. I don't know if you can read Spanish, but just looking at the home page, it looks like it's a pretty big deal.

http://elcomercio.com/

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by grude

How is this whole thing going over politically in Ecuador? I'm not sure how I'd feel as a citizen of a small nation that my government was souring relations and wasting tons of money protecting Assange. I have nothing against Assange, it just seems like a waste of money and relations for Ecuador, where is the national interest?

Considering that the current government is aligned with the Hugo Chavez anti-"imperialist" movement, and the Ecuadorean president has had pretty consistently high approval ratings, I'd bet the episode is playing fairly well. Nothing like stickin' it to the Yankee imperialists and their Swedish stooges to make some people happy.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by grude

How is this whole thing going over politically in Ecuador? I'm not sure how I'd feel as a citizen of a small nation that my government was souring relations and wasting tons of money protecting Assange. I have nothing against Assange, it just seems like a waste of money and relations for Ecuador, where is the national interest?

I'm wondering this myself. It's an aweful lot of trouble for Ecuador, considering that Assange has no connection to their contry, and in truth is a very inconsequential person. It's even questionable that they'll get to thumb their noses at the US, since the US is at least two steps removed from this, if it's involved at all.

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by grude

How is this whole thing going over politically in Ecuador? I'm not sure how I'd feel as a citizen of a small nation that my government was souring relations and wasting tons of money protecting Assange. I have nothing against Assange, it just seems like a waste of money and relations for Ecuador, where is the national interest?

Well, I suppose a resident of Ecuador could believe that secret backroom deals tend to screw the people not in the backroom, and therefore believe that exposing how the governments of big wealthy countries like the U.S. cut deals with other governments might help prevent ordinary citizens (especially those of less powerful countries such as Ecuador) from being screwed. It's a pretty far-fetched, idea, I know, but I suppose some deluded soul could believe it.

It's not clear to me how much money Ecuador is wasting, either-- the extra utility bills from one more person in the office shouldn't be very much. At least not compared to however much Britain is spending on a full-time intensive police blockade.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

And the US military shot Osama Bin Laden in the head in a nighttime raid in a third country. Clearly, the same thing could happen to Assange in London or Stockholm. Nay, it will definitely happen to Assange... it's happened before!!1!

You saw the link about Sweden handing asylum seekers over to the CIA to get tortured, didn't you? So it's not like Sweden is some completely different existence where nothing bad can happen to anyone.

Or are you saying that Assange is safe because he's white?

[joebuck20]

Just an interesting aside, Googling around, it looks like Ecuadorian Embassy is in the same building as the Colombian Embassy.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

Here's the Web site for one of Quito's main newspapers. I don't know if you can read Spanish, but just looking at the home page, it looks like it's a pretty big deal.

http://elcomercio.com/

Here's also the front page from another of Ecuador's main dailies.

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpa...ge=gal&b_pge=3

[Mogle]

Originally Posted by Quercus

You saw the link about Sweden handing asylum seekers over to the CIA to get tortured, didn't you? So it's not like Sweden is some completely different existence where nothing bad can happen to anyone.

Strictly speaking, it was a matter of deporting asylum seekers whose request for asylum had been denied back to their home country. There isn't really anything strange about this.
What was strange in that particular case was that:
A)There were good reasons to grant them asylum(they faced potential torture in Egypt), but it was still denied.
and
B)For some reason the CIA got involved in the deportation to Egypt.

Or are you saying that Assange is safe because he's white?

Well, he's not accused of being an islamic terrorist and if we were to deport him anywhere I would expect it to be to Australia.

On a side note, am I the only one here that finds ironic that someone who has built his fame on being, shall we say, an uncomfortable journalist, seeks refuge in Ecuador, a nation which record on freedom of speech and press is far from stellar?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Quercus

Or are you saying that Assange is safe because he's white?

I'm mocking the idea that Julian Assange's case is in any way comparable to the cases that have been used as comparisons here.

Of course people have been wrongly accused to having terrorist ties, and been either tortured or imprisoned unjustly. It's clear that many governments have made immoral decisions based on the mere accusation or insinuation of terrorist ties.

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with Julian Assange's case. When the United States starts rounding up "hackivists" with no real, suspected, or imagined ties to terrorist groups and holding them in secret prisons, then you have a case.

By the way, is there any evidence that Guantanamo has received new prisoners since Obama was elected?

[Sandwich]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

There is an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Sweden, which I believe has survived a challenge in Swedish court. Realistically in the EU I don't think it's normal at all for one country to just ignore valid arrest warrants from another EU country.

Well quite. EU citizens are very strongly motivated that criminals who commit crimes in Europe should not be able to evade justice simply by nipping across the nearest (unpoliced) border. They are also equally motivated that they do not want to live in a police state.

So, this case really isn't about Assange at all. It's about making sure that European Arrest Warrants work, and that innocent journalists who are the victims of malicious accusations don't have to spend months in jail waiting for trial but can instead be granted bail, and that foreign diplomats can live in London or Stockholm or wherever without facing any particular restrictions.

Astute dopers will realise the irony that Assange is making our liberal approach to justice difficult to sustain, and that he seems committed to spending more time living uncomfortably in a makeshift room in the Ecuadorean embassy than living comfortably in a Swedish jail even if he were convicted, which seems unlikely.

He hasn't even be charged by the US?!? So, given the profile, even if he were charged by the US he would not be extradited by either Sweden or the UK without a cast iron agreement that he could not face the death penalty on this or any related charge, since that would breach EU law. Does the US even have a mechanism for giving such a guarantee?

It's all just a bizarre bit of absurdist theatre.

[Omar Little]

Interestingly, per the google map search street view, the Ecuadoran Embassy in London is right next door to Harrods!

Google Map Link

They better not let him get in there, he'll never be found.

[Martin Hyde]

While not the most routine affair, the U.S. has multiple times in the past agreed not to seek the death penalty against capital defendants extradited to the U.S. from Europe and other countries that prohibit the death penalty. Since we have no evidence Assange has been charged with any crime I can't know what he might theoretically be charged with, but it probably wouldn't be a capital offense. It would be something like "conspiracy to release classified documents improperly." It seems unlikely to me he would be charged with espionage. We do have the death penalty for espionage in the U.S. but only in theory these days, it's probably been 60 years since we've sentenced a spy to death.

There is also a very strong chance Assange broke no American laws. If he actively co-conspired with Manning in order to get Manning to release documents maybe that is illegal, but if he just received classified documents he wouldn't have broken a law. Manning as someone with a security clearance is breaking the law by disclosing classified information, a random dude without a clearance who is just handed classified documents has done nothing improper by disseminating them.

[aldiboronti]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Are they? It's not like an airbed and food for one person is that expensive, and I assume the diplomatic contingent are drawing a salary for their time in Britain whether or not they're actually doing anything at the moment.

According to this site the police presence around the embassy is costing the British taxpayer £50,000 a day (around $78,000). Considering that this will likely run on for some months I think we're looking at a pretty hefty total. I don't know how that amount is calculated but this will be extra expense, I'm sure for instance the police will be drawing lots of overtime pay for these duties, that's expensive in itself.)

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Assange is paranoid, and it's the Swedish judicial system that's out to get him.

"US is in persuit of Assange, cables reveal"
http://www.theage.com.au/national/us...817-24e8u.html

The Age is a respected Australian paper, officially the Australian government claims they have no evidence the US is interested in Assange. Leaked Australian diplomatic cables seem to indicate Australian diplomats believe otherwise.

[Acsenray]

The use of the term "British soil" sort of points out the misunderstanding of diplomatic courtesies. The Ecuadorian embassy in London is on the same national "soil" as the rest of the United Kingdom. Assange is on British soil inside the Ecuadorian embassy just as he is outside it.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Kind of besides the point, though, since Assange (having not been detained in a war zone or captured in relation to a terrorist plot) wouldn't go anywhere besides a regular old court, jail, whatever.

emphasis added

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Tell that to Maher Arar, the Canadian who was detained by US officials in New York, who then sent him to Syria for a year's worth of torture, without any charges, due process or court authorisation.

Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/s...-cia-rendition

Originally Posted by Grumman

Or the asylum seekers Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza, who were tortured after Sweden handed them over to the CIA.

The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

I specifically said that I didn't think that Assange was at risk of torture because he hasn't been implicated in terrorist plots. I'm not sure how bringing up those tortured in Syria or Egypt who were suspected of terrorist activities contradicts this.

Of course, if you really believe that the US gov is going to try to link Assange to al Qaeda or a similar organization, I'd be interested in hearing what makes you that this is likely.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by aldiboronti

According to this site the police presence around the embassy is costing the British taxpayer £50,000 a day (around $78,000). Considering that this will likely run on for some months I think we're looking at a pretty hefty total. I don't know how that amount is calculated but this will be extra expense, I'm sure for instance the police will be drawing lots of overtime pay for these duties, that's expensive in itself.)

The person I was responding to was talking about Ecuador's costs, not the UK's.

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

I specifically said that I didn't think that Assange was at risk of torture because he hasn't been implicated in terrorist plots. I'm not sure how bringing up those tortured in Syria or Egypt who were suspected of terrorist activities contradicts this.

It's not like that's stopped them. Just look at how they treated Bradley Manning.

[Pitchmeister]

Another thing I don't get: I believe I'd much rather be in prison in Sweden for a while than live in Ecuador for the rest of my life (which doesn't say as much about Ecuador as it does about Swedish prisons).

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by Pitchmeister

Another thing I don't get: I believe I'd much rather be in prison in Sweden for a while

Rightly or wrongly Assange believes that going to sweden will end up with him in the US and getting the same treatment as Bradley Manning.

Evidence of IRC chats between Manning and Assange was presented during Manning's trial. Personally I find it hard to believe that the US wouldn't try and make a conspiracy / espionage charge stick if they could get their hands on Assange.