The reason that we force people to have insurance is because they don't have the money to pay the damages, and the damages have to be paid, how else is the motorcyclist supposed to get his medical care and compensation?

How exactly is getting 50% of your income for the next 30 years going to help the motorcyclist family if your income is 0? And how exactly is it going to help them pay to get all their damages restored right now?

The typical case is that you have dissident against Country A hiding in Country B's embassy.

In this case you have a dissident against Country A hiding from criminal charges from Country B while living in Country C and hiding in Country D's embassy.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with it if he was at the Ecuadorian embassy in the US, then you'd have a textbook case of political asylum.

The 72 hours to leave are for when your status is revoked, not when you were never granted the status in the first place. You'll note that diplomats always get their status -before- they arrive in the host country, not after.

You'll note that all legal experts unanimously agree that there's no legal way for Assange to get out of the UK except possibly as the Ecuadorian UN Ambassador. Not even a diplomatic car can get him out, although if they thought he could survive in a diplomatic mail bag....

You'll note that the Libyan Embassy event happened 1984 and they wrote the law that allows them to do this in 1987?

Generally, international custom considers it ok for Embassies to hold POLITICAL criminals in safety.

Generally, international custom DOES NOT CONSIDER IT OK for Embassies to hold COMMON criminals in safety.

It's actually a lot easier to justify raiding the embassy for a random douche-bag then a political dissident.

That's not how they work though.

Sweden can give MOU's about how they will treat Assange, that he'll get all his human rights etc.

Sweden can't give MOU's about how they handle extradition requests from other parties.

Diplomatic status is granted by the host country. Only the UK can give Assange diplomatic status.

No, they only have to allow the Ecuadorian diplomats leave, they have no obligation to let Assange leave.

Sweden didn't so much refuse, as explain why they can't. See just like most civilised countries Sweden has separate branches of government and extradition is handled by the Judicial one. While the Parliament has the last say in whether to extradite or not, giving a guarantee would violate the process.

Sweden is a Kingdom, not a Republic. Being a Journalist in no way makes you immune to rape charges thank you very much.

Just because you have a criminal as your next door neighbour doesn't mean everything bad that happens to you is something your neighbour did. It might be very convenient to blame everything on him, but it's more constructive to look into the actual cause first.

Well, it's important to remember that illumination is always relative. Rain Glare is caused by the relative difference in light reflected from the raindrops vs the light reflected from everything else.

Thus to reduce the glare you don't need to make no light hit the raindrops, you just need to make -less- light hit the raindrops. I suspect they're using the exact same technologies you see in your average video projector.

No, provisional arrest is something else. Article 16 covers arrest while waiting for the proper extradition papers to be filed.

This is used in situations where an arrest has to be made NOW since the proper paperwork does take a fair while to work its way through the bureaucracy during which the criminal might escape otherwise.

It would make sense if you had any familiarity what so ever with how prosecution happens in non-common law states.

In Sweden you can be arrested for 'questioning' if you're a 'likely suspect'. People who are arrested for crimes that carry prison penalties longer then 1 year can be extradited through the European Arrest Warrant, rape as it happens has 4 years and qualifies.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Obviously it's not proven, that's why he's extradited for "questioning" so he can be prosecuted in court, not jailing! The proving part is done once he's in court.

Also, how exactly is US jurisdiction relevant to an Extradition from the UK to Sweden over a crime done in Sweden? You're making no sense.