[varjag]

> Sweden has a particular definition of rape that is far more encompassing of conduct that in most jurisdictions constitutes fully consensual activity. Since the claims against Assange would be considered claims of consensual sex in the US, it's hard for me to take them entirely seriously, yet the label of "Rapist" persists. This phenomenon is truly bizarre.

What's truly bizarre is the crowd who's first to invoke "innocent until proven guilty" is so opposed to the proving part.

You don't really believe that Swedish inquiry is a part of due process, do you? I really doubt if the charges were incriminating whatever constitutes U.S. edition of rape, your position would be any different.

What it come downs to, you guys really really are attached to this fella, simply because he was saying all the right things and going by all the points you read in Cypherpunk Manifesto. You are willing to excuse him things that you'd find inexcusable to anyone from the "establishment".

[grandalf]

> You are willing to excuse him things that you'd find inexcusable to anyone from the "establishment".

Not at all. Please recall that Assange has a legitimate concern about extradition and has had to seek political asylum. In spite of this he has offered to face the charges if some assurance could be made that he would not be taken into custody and extradited.

Since Assange is a political refugee, I take his concerns seriously. He has shown no sign of being unwilling to face the charges, and the new prosecutor has requested them to be dropped.

What I find most upsetting is that there appears to be some sort of strategy going on where the governments are trying to ensnare Assange and get him extradited (and imprisoned for espionage).

While it is possible that Assange did commit espionage, the bigger problem is that the US Government has not faced any accountability for the revelations in the Iraq or Afganistan war logs. We're talking about pretty serious illegal behavior if not war crimes that were revealed, and there have been zero consequences. Bush got re-elected and Obama continued and escalated Bush's policies!

Wikileaks is a tiny "institution" that has focused scrutiny on some very large and powerful institutions. As an American citizen who values transparency and the proper functioning of the checks and balances (and democratic process) as well as the appropriate and desirable adversarial relationship between the press and government, I am profoundly disappointed at the lack of consequences or accountability both for the war logs and for the Snowden revelations.

In terms of the total harm caused by these situations, allowing the US Government to survive these sorts of revelations unscathed and unaccountable is terrifying, and goes strongly against the core principles on which our nation was founded.

In general, Assange is a very minor player who happens to have (boldly, foolishly, selfishly, or whatever) helped to reveal some information that we simply must act on. The messenger is simply not important, nor are his personal failings.

So to correct your misapprehension, the story never should have been about Assange at all, at any point. The story should always have been about the misdeeds and corruption revealed by Wikileaks.

[varjag]

> He has shown no sign of being unwilling to face the charges, and the new prosecutor has requested them to be dropped.

He broke the bail and went on the run. If that doesn't constitute "unwillingness to face charges", am not sure what does.

I would agree with you though that Assange persona isn't particularly important in the grand scheme of things.

[grandalf]

> He broke the bail and went on the run. If that doesn't constitute "unwillingness to face charges", am not sure what does.

He's been confined in an embassy building for quite some time, which is roughly equivalent to a minimum security prison! He'd likely not have faced this level of punishment for the alleged sex crimes even if he'd been found guilty of them. It's important to recall that he's been forced to seek political asylum. Being labeled a rapist and unable to vindicate himself (for fear of extradition) is also likely quite upsetting to him if he's innocent.

[varjag]

Being unwilling to face justice isn't exactly helping his case. But we are making full circle to my initial point: you are unwilling to contemplate that Swedish prosecution is acting in good faith and in due process. And the reason for that is you like the guy.

[grandalf]

> you are unwilling to contemplate that Swedish prosecution is acting in good faith and in due process

Not at all. The unknown is why the Swedish government won't offer Assange assurance that he wouldn't be extradited. It's probably because he would be, hence, his position is rational. Both the prosecutor and Assange may be acting rationally, as may the Swedish government -- after all, why would it decide to irritate the US by not extraditing Assange?

I would prefer if Assange's guilt or innocence in the rape accusations were determined, because the accusations generally get in the way of the mission of Wikileaks, which I generally support. I don't have a soft spot in my heart for Assange, and if he does turn out to be guilty it will not impact my view on the important issues (the war logs, etc.) whatsoever.

Who cares if Assange himself is a hero or villain, I'm not the sort of simpleton who needs to pretend that everyone whose actions I support is a faultless model citizen. The important issue is that he (hero or villain) helped reveal some very important information about the US Government which should lead to consequences and accountability.