I feel like you are willfully ignoring the points GP made...
Past arrests of Assange have resulted in violations of his inalienable rights. Thus, given the threat of more arrests he is warranted to ask for amnesty since it can very easily be assumed he will face more unjust treatment (especially given he has not been charged with anything).
At that point all of your other objections are moot, in that asylum was legally granted by Ecuador but is not being recognized by the UK authorities who are thus in violation of international law.
>>> Asylum is not a get out of jail free card
You're correct, it's a "don't go to jail in the first place free card", which is the whole point of asylum.
>>> It is debatable whether a nation may grant asylum through its embassy on foreign soil.
No it's not
>>> One's right to asylum does not protect one from prosecution outside of the country granting asylum.
>>> Past arrests of Assange have resulted in violations of his inalienable rights.
What past arrests? His possible arrest in Sweden is dependent on him being interrogated, which can't happen because he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. The only arrest I'm aware of is him being on house arrest while the UK courts assessed the validity of Sweden's extradition request.
>>> given the threat of more arrests he is warranted to ask for amnesty since it can very easily be assumed he will face more unjust treatment
I'd prefer if we didn't base international extradition issues on assumptions of further unjust treatment by the "evil" US.
>>> Again, he hasn't been charged with anything
Again, that's a idiosyncrasy of Swedish law, not a grand conspiracy to deprive JA of his rights. IF he actually fronted up to the interrogation/second round of questioning by Swedish authorities back in 2010 instead of fleeing the country to the UK none of this would be an issue. He's actively been evading possible criminal prosecution for 5 years since and yet we're meant to believe it's because the US will extradite him from Sweden despite the extradition treaty between those two countries excluding extradition for political or espionage offences or cases involving the death penalty. Furthermore this narrative of extradition from Sweden to the US has been concocted by Assange and his legal team, I can only assume to attempt to keep him from facing prosecution in Sweden. It has zero basis in fact.
I understand self preservation is a serious driving force in a person's life so I can understand why Assange is doing this. What I can't understand is how so many people can wilfully ignore the facts of this situation because they have a personal affinity for one of the interested parties.
Past arrests of Assange have resulted in violations of his inalienable rights. Thus, given the threat of more arrests he is warranted to ask for amnesty since it can very easily be assumed he will face more unjust treatment (especially given he has not been charged with anything).
At that point all of your other objections are moot, in that asylum was legally granted by Ecuador but is not being recognized by the UK authorities who are thus in violation of international law.
>>> Asylum is not a get out of jail free card
You're correct, it's a "don't go to jail in the first place free card", which is the whole point of asylum.
>>> It is debatable whether a nation may grant asylum through its embassy on foreign soil.
No it's not
>>> One's right to asylum does not protect one from prosecution outside of the country granting asylum.
Again, he hasn't been charged with anything