[rickmb]

Seems to me Assange isn't so much afraid of being extradited to US (there is a truckload of ways to fight that if it ever comes to that) but of actually being convicted in Sweden.

The Piratebay trials have shown how corrupted the Swedish justice system can be, with both police, prosecution and judges having proven private connections with the copyright industry (which in itself is not only organized and financed by the US, but also actively backed up by the US government).

Being extradited to the US would make him a martyr, but being convicted for rape in Sweden would damage his reputation beyond repair. I doubt if the US even wants to deal with the whole circus of getting Assange extradited if there's an easier way to take him out of play.

[objclxt]

It depresses me that people are trying to make comparisons between a copyright infringement case and a rape accusation. Copyright infringement and rape are rather different. This should be obvious. I really don't know where to begin there - I know this community is male dominated, but rape is a incredibly serious crime. Piracy may well be a 'victimless crime'. Rape is not.

Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts.

Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt. Assange knows this. His lawyers know this. If Assange thought he wouldn't get a fair trial he would have argued this point in the English courts. Many people have avoided extradition from the UK to various unpleasant places on the basis they wouldn't get a fair trial.

His legal argument was flimsy at best. Assange tried to argue Sweden lacked the authority to issue the arrest warrant in the first place, an argument that was basically laughed out of court. However, the English courts have had a lot of patience for Assange, and have offered him several avenues of appeal on the basis it's an important and high profile case. The Supreme Court even allowed an additional submission after their judgement (this is very unusual).

This is a criminal case involving two parties. Both parties have guaranteed rights. Think about the women involved for a second. They have accused Assange of rape. Perhaps they are lying: Assange is after all innocent until proven guilty. But is it out of the question they are telling the truth? No, it's not.

And that is why Assange should really willingly return to Sweden to face his accusers. He isn't willing, and his arguments about fearing the US really aren't that convincing given the UK is more than happy to extradite people to the states.

[mathetic]

It depresses me that people are commenting on the issue without actually knowing what the investigation in Sweden is about.

I might be wrong but there is a slight difference between not wearing a condom and rape. I don't care if Sweden is calling consensual sex without condom rape. In Assange's case, he allegedly sabotaged his condom with one woman and allegedly refused to wear a condom with another one but he did not have sex with them against their will. Nobody can argue that because there are no signs of forceful sex.

IMO, this is crazy. There is no way of proving Assange right since only witnesses are two different women claiming similar accusations and the nature of the crime does not allow much evidence. It might sound like a crazy conspiracy theory (I take into account that even Canadian strategist called for Assange's assassination[1]), but somebody might be paying these two women (or threatening them) to lie in the court.

[2] http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13391

[molmalo]

Exactly, people keep on talking about "rape", simply because the accusation is not a crime in any other country. So, I may be wrong, but I tend to think that this is a product of mass media: A- using this term to destroy his reputation, or B- using this term, because it's much more difficult to construct public opinion, trying to explain the real "crime" in other countries.

[stan_rogers]

If consent is given under one set of conditions, and the conditions change, you no longer have consent. It's not a minor thing, period.

[roguecoder]

Except that Assange said he did exactly what they said he did: http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concede... This isn't even a case of he-said-she-said; I don't know where the fanatical skepticism is coming from.

It's not called rape in Sweden either, it is sexual misconduct. It is a crime. Even in countries where it is not a crime, it is still a terrible thing to do.

I can support WikiLeaks and also think he did these things, just like I can admire Hans Reiser's file systems. These acts are the product of thinking your desires are important enough to disregard someone else's rights to control their own body. That does not even seem out of character for Assange.

[rickmb]

Wow, that is a ridiculously suggestive hit piece you're linking to, but even that doesn't justify your claim, since even in that piece neither Assange (who isn't even quoted in it) nor his lawyer says anything of the kind.

It's merely his lawyer quoting the accusations, and the author trying to twist this into an admission of guilt because of, OMG, "the tone". And then there's you piling it on claiming it was Assange who said it, which is a complete fabrication, at least if you take that link as "evidence".

If you want to know where the skepticism is coming from: it comes from these kind of filthy propaganda tactics.

[ggchappell]

> Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts.

Where did this come from? Due process is a right of the accused. I've never heard of accusers having due process rights. After all, anyone can accuse anyone of anything. And prosecutors can just roll their eyes at them, if they want.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the accusations against JA are worth an eye-roll; I'm only questioning your assertion about due-process rights for accusers.

Also, I'm generally familiar with U.S. law, less so with English law, and very much less so with Swedish.

[lawnchair_larry]

He is not being charged with rape. He is being charged with intentionally tearing a condom during consensual intercourse. It's pretty offensive to compare this with rape, imo.

[cyrus_]

Actually, he's not being charged with anything yet. The warrant is simply to require him to come to Sweden for questioning, after which time the prosecutor will decide whether to charge him with any crime. At the moment, he has only been accused of a crime.

Also, it is my understanding that the accusation was brought by the police officers after reading the statements given by the women in question. They had only come to ask if Assange could be required to take an HIV test.

[epo]

The questioning relates to exposing a woman to bodily fluids against her will, creating in her the risk of disease or unwanted pregnancy.

She may have agreed to sex given certain conditions, he (allegedly) wilfully broke those conditions. There may or may not have been coercion involved but rape is a good shorthand description and there are serious questions to answer and serious charges to be laid if he cannot provide good answers.

[mcpie]

That is actually quite clearly defined as rape in Swedish law: 'Causing helplessness or a similar state of incapacitation shall be regarded as equivalent to violence.'

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf (page 24, sorry for pdf link)

[ashconnor]

Is this a crime in the UK?

I'm no lawyer but doesn't something have to be a crime in both countries in order to be eligible for extradition?

[njharman]

Accusation of a crime is identical to accusation of any other crime. Doesn't matter what the Respective crimes are.

ACCUSATION is not guilt.

[genwin]

If I had to fight an accusation of a rape I didn't commit, even if I was vindicated I'd end up destitute and homeless. Any reasonable person would evade these women's due process if they were in Assange's shoes, especially the innocent.

[gringomorcego]

"Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt."

http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapd...

Wah wah.

[lawnchair_larry]

That might be a concern, but I doubt it. He was very forthcoming while he was in Sweden. He showed up for questioning and was given permission to leave. He's asked to be questioned remotely, and Sweden refuses to charge him or question him. If you've read anything about the incidents, it's a very weak case for something that shouldn't be a crime to begin with.

None of us know what the US is doing, if anything. We do know, by their own admission, that they began an aggressive investigation into whether or not Assange could be charged. We also know that everyone known associated with Wikileaks had their twitter and other social accounts subpoenaed. Manning's lawyer also indicated that the DoJ discussed the possibility of a plea bargain. As recently as a few weeks ago, US officials said they are waiting to see how the UK case plays out before charging him.

It is more probable than not that after such statements and aggressive investigations, that the US will charge him. It is more probable than not that the reason they have not yet done so, is because it's better for them to let this case finish, as they said.

Assange is not under the impression that he is immune to these inevitable charges and extradition in any of the countries involved. He has resigned to the fact that he is likely to face the US DoJ, and an extradition request, one way or another.

Assange believes that he has a tactical advantage in this case if this does not happen in Sweden. I don't know all of the reasons for this, but this is not surprising, and he has obviously been advised to exhaust this route by his legal counsel. It's safe to assume that this has been their decision, not his.

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just how court cases work. Even in the US, it is common to fight for the most favorable jurisdiction. The presence of an extradition treaty in both countries does not mean that an extradition request is equally difficult to fight in both countries. This could change depending on laws in a specific country, or even be influenced by public perception or even corruption.

When is the last time someone was held for a year and a half in an international dispute to be questioned about a broken or missing condom incident? That makes the least sense.

Edit: It's worth noting that according to the hacked stratfor emails, the US already has a sealed indictment for him:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/28/1069018/-Leaked-Str...

[roguecoder]

It wouldn't have anything to do with him having admitted all matters of fact, would it? He's basically arguing, "yeah, I broke the law, but it's a stupid law." That always works out great.