[philwelch]

It could always be both. Assange is probably persona non grata to the British authorities, but even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden. At most, the British authorities are reacting opportunistically to an otherwise valid, legitimate charge.

[spindritf]

> you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden

If you want to go after someone's reputation, a rape charge is perfect -- repugnant and requires no hard evidence, especially in Sweden. The only thing better would be an allegation without a formal charge... Though sure, there are more plausible explanations.

[rizla]

Sexual assualt charges have ludicrously low conviction rates (rapes especially), they are usually a he said, she said affair unless there's a significant degree of violence. Going down a peso route would be a lot easier, lower burden of proof... And evidence that can be fabricated without bringing a victim or witness to court.

Secondly, if the us wanted assagne they'd have him, shifting to Ecuador is probably a lot less safe than hanging around an EU country IMO

Thirdly, he had his chance to go back to Sweden, he ran. He had his chance in the uk, he ran. He's not showing him self to be of good character if the acts of abuse of process he claims to stand against are being carried out by himself

Guilty or not, he's got questions to ask. Running away isn't going to make his issues disappear

And lets not forget, sexual assault is a serious allegation, and if you had any sense about you, someone lying about using protection would really piss you off. Apart from the fact it means putting a woman at risk of having to look after a brat for 18 years plus incubation, there's also the risk of disease, complication through pregnancy and common flipping curtosey.

[orangecat]

even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden

I would absolutely go for something like that, if I were clever enough to think of it. Look at how effectively it's split his support on the left by pitting civil libertarians against feminists, even on this thread.

[vidarh]

There's been a complaint filed against the Swedish prosecutor over this case by third parties (two journalists) alleging judicial misconduct and serious breaches of Swedish law over amongst others her insistent refusal to send anyone to the UK to interview Assange, so it remains to be seem just how valid and legitimate this whole thing is.

[runako]

I agree 100%. I wonder if those defending Assange would do so if he were accused of raping someone they care about.

[mkramlich]

Fact: he has not been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence.

And if you read up on the details of the story, and the context, it's very fishy. It's at best a case of he-said vs she-said --- arguably one of the perfect ways to smear someone's reputation and cause them legal and financial hassle, without having to meet the minimum legal standards to convict someone of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Men and women have sex ALL the time, 24/7, all across the world, in all sorts of complex ways, variations, situations, and very often without condoms. It's also a fact that a large percentage of women like men to be dominant with them and it arouses them.

Given all these facts, and this cultural context, it's hard to know exactly what happened behind closed doors in these incidents, and before the legal system ruins a man's life they need to be damn sure they're doing the right thing. From just what's known publicly so far this case looks so flaky and muddled and suspicious that a reasonable person could easily say those standards aren't met here.

[runako]

I must admit that I'm confused. The Wikipedia page says he's been accused of rape:

"In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by two women in Sweden"

That seems to imply that an attorney was able to present sufficient evidence to a court to merit an arrest warrant being issued. I don't know the facts of the case in depth, but you seem to be asserting that European Arrest Warrants are issued capriciously, with no regard for due process. That would seem to be far more worrying that the specifics of this case.

>> There is no trial. There are no charges.

At least in the US, those typically come after the suspect is apprehended (and not in that order). Perhaps it's different in European courts. But I was not aware that trials in absentia were the norm there.