Although I may have gotten a detail wrong, you've got an even bigger one wrong. Go back and read your link. There aren't two prosecutors involved here, there are at least three. (Hmm, do you think all three prosecutors were women?) Two of those three prosecutors wanted to change Assange. Doesn't that seem to indicate that isn't an unreasonable position? Speaking of bias, why do you think that third prosecutor wanted to drop changes that the other two wanted to pursue? "Who got to her" should be your question.

I doubt that most Windows users will ever hear of it. The vulnerability will probably be around for years to come providing years of entertainment for security professionals and identity theft resolution departments.

They must want to arrest him since there is an arrest warrant out for him. How can they arrest him if they can't take control of him? That is nonsense. Questioning following arrest is typical, not unusual. Assange had a chance for questioning without arrest, but that is gone now. If Assange is surrendered for arrest he will probably be in custody until this is cleared up, which probably means a trial and maybe prison. Now he is a bail jumper and nobody will take a chance on him doing it again. And once Sweden is done with him he will have to face UK justice for violating his bail and becoming a fugitive. Assange will probably send several more years in that embassy to try to run out the rest of the charges against him instead of face them.

So in your view my advocating that Julian Assange be treated like anyone else and that he face the allegations of sexual assault against him is "foaming at the mouth"? If that is the case you are probably coming from a fringe perspective, and I would like to know why you think that Assange shouldn't face his accusers like anyone else in a Western nation (including Japan)?

I'm also happy to bring some facts to the discussion that are often overlooked, or denied. Up thread here AmiMoJo is engaging in distortion, painting a false picture for political reasons. He backs Assange just like he has soft pedaled North Korea's record, that of one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth that has starved hundreds of thousands or millions to maintain its huge army and build nuclear weapons, saying in essence that they aren't so bad. I see you ridiculing religion, and asking people for evidence of their faith. Is it too much to ask that we stick to the facts and accurately discuss them on other topics? Or is Assange a secular demi-god beyond questioning and the standards of mortal men? Where is your skepticism here?

I expect the reason that many of my submissions are accepted is because I try to submit interesting stories that would appeal to the Slashdot community. If you don't like what I submit, why don't you submit more?

Obviously at this point it isn't a bug, its a "feature." The only question is why did Google decide to push this negative feature?

Which if that applies to black children? I hadn't noticed that black children were a big target of the IRS.

Here you go:

Sweden rejects Assange appeal to drop arrest warrant

Here is what Ecuador's Foreign Ministry said, and noted in the article: "Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement."

Does that sound like they have received a request? Yes. Do the Swedes say they submitted a request? Yes. So why the holdup? What is the weighty decision to be made here? If Ecuador was really disposed towards cooperation after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy why is there a delay? Do you think it is really a "paperwork" problem? No. This is all political theater on Assange's behalf by Ecuador. I doubt there was every any intention of allowing it. And given the level of sophistication on the part of those involved, they are unlikely to come right out and say "No." There will always be just one more problem, some papers not in order, unless they suddenly fold and allow it to avoid bigger diplomatic problems. We'll see.

The most likely scenario is that they simply run out the clock and Assange never has to answer for the accusations of rape.

That's not really going to work.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

The other "possibility" is that you and AmiMoJo have got it wrong. What do you think the odds are? A simple reading of the story shows AmiMoJo has it wrong based on what he is claiming.

Unfortunately you've got some things wrong there. I suggest you read this, and follow the link to read the rest of that item.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

The post you are replying to isn't mine, and your facts aren't in order. Is that a habit of yours?

They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly. Assange isn't a head of state, he is a fugitive from allegations of rape that should be answered in the criminal justice system like any other.

Can Assange be extradited from Sweden to the USA?

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”

You've fallen for a line of nonsense.

That isn't really correct, is it? Sweden informed both Ecuador and the UK that it would like to interview Assange at the embassy. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry issued this weighty statement that it would consider the request in light of this and that, but didn't give permission. Really, what is this "paperwork" difficulty that is stopping things if Ecuador truly wished to cooperate with Sweden?

This is clearly a manufactured delay by Ecuador on behalf of Assange to help run out the clock on the statute of limitations.

Is that what you got out of the article? It looks different to me, actually pretty much the reverse of what you think it is. Let's look at the section in question. If you look at the section in bold below you see that the Swedes say they submitted a request to interview Assange at the embassy. Then we see this weighty statement from Ecuador that they will consider it in light of this and that. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry statement comes after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy which would seem to indicate that there was support for that in the embassy and Ecuador. (After all, would Assange make the demand repeatedly if he had no support for it from the Ecuadorians?) And finally we have the Swedish spokesman stating that there are "problems" with a number of the documents. It's fairly easy to see what is going on.

The Swedes made a request in good faith to Ecuador and the UK*(see below) and the government of Ecuador has decided to drag their feet and manufacture excuses to not allow the meeting to happen. They are providing cover for Assange with the statute of limitations for some of the charges rapidly approaching. What possible difficulty could there really be if Ecuador was of a mind to truly cooperate? What is this weighty decision?

This is political cover for Assange by Ecuador, plain and simple. I'm a little surprised you don't see it given your hyper-suspicion about the UK, US, and other Western countries. Ah, but there it is - Ecuador is a Leftist paradise offering refuge to Assange. No scrutiny needed there!

* Sweden may quiz Julian Assange this month