Pete, this situation interests me, too.
As an American, I believe in freedom of speech, and particularly when it reveals any indefensible action by our government.
His right to reveal identities of our covert agents, however, stops where their nose starts, so to speak.
However, he's not being sought by the authorities for those actions, he's being sought on a morals conviction, right?
I could see how this man, who is quite wealthy, could hire a helicopter to hover over the Ecuadorian Embassy and lift him into the cockpit with a rope ladder, then whisk him off beyond the reach of the long arm of the British law. He could probably engineer a myriad of escape techniques...so, the issue is not one of whether he will escape, IMHO, it is one of when and how.
My question is "Do the British have something to prove?" If I am correct, when an individual is granted assylum in another country, efforts to capture him aren't necessarily stepped up, the usual response is to carry on, keep a stiff upper lip, and if and when the individual in captured again, even perhaps as a result of something simple such as a traffic infraction, notify the government of the country that is seeking the extradition that they can pick up the detainee.
I'm intrigued by the vigor with which the British are pursuing this guy...no doubt his notoriety has something to do with it, but what are they trying to prove?
I ask this sincerely...I am not aware of the standard practices of the British in this matter, just the way I see things happening in our part of the world (and, for God's SAKE, don't expect our despicable neighbors to the south to attempt to help us when we want to extradite someone :thumbsdown: ).
Keith....Jon....Pete....help me learn more about what's going on, please!
Cheers!
Doug
