After much deliberation, London court has ruled that Julian Assange "should" be extradited to Sweden to answer questions about date rape, even though the founder of Wikileaks has never been charged with a crime.
You have to wonder what went on in the court's chamber to deny him the right to remain in England. Assange has offered other options to answer questions about charges brought against him: at first they were dropped; his alleged 'victims' owned up the sex was consentual; nonetheless, another district attorney in another part of Sweden reinstated them.
Aussange, willing to cooperate with the Swedish authorities, fears that should he go to Sweden, Sweden would ship him off to the US on the basis of an extradition treaty.
The Obama administration is looking for the Australian's blood since 'Wikileaks' began publishing US diplomatic cables that have embarrassed the US and caused reparable damage with its allies.
There is an odour of collusion in the London court's pronouncement: did it buckle under 'foreign pressure'? No doubt, details will emerge concerning how the decision was rendered.
So far the US has 'bankrupted' 'Wikileaks', which has temporarily shut down its business; the Obama administration has used laws to deny ordinary Americans and government workers access to information Assange's outfit leaked on pain of pursuit in the courts for reading lowly classified or declassified information, only available now on foreign websites.
The hunt for Assange's blood has driven the US to extra legal means; Obama & co. won't be satisfied until they've Assange's head on a stick.
Yet Aussange's lawyers have recourse to higher courts to overturn the London court's dodgy verdict.