> Actually under the Vienna convention they have to have an unusually good
> reason.
Which Article are you referring to?
> Think of the all the cases where other nations have NOT done this
> in response to more egregious cases.
That's not a legal principle though. And besides, it works both ways. I can think of a lot of cases where nations have NOT granted asylum in more egregious cases... that has nothing to do with the validity of the case at hand.
> Incidentally, the whole "we arre
> obliged to Sweden to do this" did not seem to apply when Spain wanted
> Pinochet.
I'm not sure the two are really comparable. Pinochet occurred before the European Arrest Warrant came into existence and involved questions of the immunity of heads of state. Assange is a fundamentally different matter, occurring in a different legal framework.
> Again though Embassies put people out of reach on their own territory all
> the time, as the U.S. did in China as recently as this April.
And again, that doesn't make it a rule of international law that they are entitled to do so without response from the host country.
> I don't agree with those who sneer
> away the rape investigation, but it is pretty obvious that it is being used
> as an excuse to turn Assange over to the U,S. for torture.
I would say it is conceivable, but far from "obvious".
Anyway it seems to be a moot point, as it's just been reported (on my radio anyway) that Britain is now saying they won't enter the embassy, but just won't give safe passage.