Carz: read the testimonies

The irony is delicious. A few decades ago, to call what Assange did rape, would have been the height of absurdity. Then we were assailed by the all-men-are-rapists crowd with a series of claims that massively expanded the legal definition of rape. Now gaining consent for intercourse in the evening doesn't allow a man to assume such consent the following morning (or minutes).

These laws were bought in throughout the western world in response to this new paradigm. But now that one of their own falls foul of them, they desperately seek to find an out. The same thing happened with Roman Polanski where it was 'agreed' that he didn't really commit rape-rape. Somehow, in the cases involving left icons, there are degrees of rape. But just let a right winger make the same point (eg Akin) and all hell breaks loose.

If Assange were a catholic priest or anyone other than a left wing hero, the only issue facing people such as the author would be whether to use the gallows or the chair.

The claims about a potential US extradition are a mere smoke-screen. Sweden has already said they wouldn't extradite him if he faced the death penalty and they have a track record in protecting people like Assange. If the US wanted him, they could get him from the UK.

Equally, the claim they could interview him in the UK is a diversion. This would be his second interview and in Sweden that has a particular significance. The Swedish prosecutor has already said that they don't want to interview him in the UK for legal reasons. If it was someone other than Assange, that would be enough for those of a certain political persuasion.

He's wanted on rape charges. Now. as absurd as it may be to call what he did 'rape', that is the law as it now sits. All the gumph about the US extradition, conspiracies etc, are merely devices to try to help a left wing icon avoid the consequences of laws bought in at the behest and demand of his current supporters.

On the face of it, this Mr Assange simply needs to appear before Swedish authorities to answer several charges involving sexual misconduct, as alleged by the two female complainents.

My knowledge of Swedish jurisprudence is limited, nevertheless I'm of the view they, the Swedish, have a pretty good, thus safe criminal justice system. Given that, what is it about this bloke that he believes he should receive any special treatment.

He should be taken from the Embassy (when he chooses to emerge) and conveyed directly to Sweden, in order to face his accusers.

I do tire of some of these individuals who feel they should receive special treatment, I really do.

No-one has accused Assange of rape, for heaven's sake will people get their heads around that simple fact?

The real issue here is that Britain is conspiring to expel an Australian citizen to Sweden from England merely to answer questions that he answered during the 5 weeks he was in Sweden after the prosecutor said there were no charges to answer.

Phrosty old son, I reckon you think that claims and facts and hang the truth and that sort of equates to facism.

Marilyn
Whatever your personal views, the actions that the police reports describe are termed rape in Swedish law (Penal Code, Chapter 6, Section 1). They are punishable by minimum custodial sentences of two years - hence for legal purposes are significant crimes. Again, whatever your views, his guilt or otherwise must be determined according to the laws of Sweden.
It is unclear who you are accusing of being in on a conspiracy - Britain is a country of some 50 million persons and more specificity is necessary. So far the only determining bodies involved have been the upper courts. The executive (government and police) are only involved in terms of executing court orders - matters in which they do not have discretion (as in court decisions regarding asylum seekers in Australia, as you are aware and support).
Mr. Assange's most focal problem is that he now has a quite definite criminal offence to his count in the UK - that of failure to surrender on a court order (that for his deportation). This is a separate matter to the relatively trivial one of breaking his bond, which will largely be dealt with by his guarantors losing their hard-earned (sarcasm). As he is must now face the criminal justice system in the UK he will not be getting out of the country by diplomatic means.
There is an old saying about what to not do when in a hole - the holy Julian should perhaps give this some regard.

Lets see:
Wikileaks releases documentary footage of criminal nigeligence/war crimes by US military personnel; Torture and human rights abuses in Guantanamo and elsewhere; Embarrassing dimplomatic documents of US collusion and manipulation of foreign governments.

Subsequently:
Banks illegally refuse to process electronic donations to Wikileaks.
Assange is alleged to not use a condom and an arrest warrant is issued.

Our Response
mmm - forget the torture, the crimes - he is not a journalist and lets hate him because he did not use a condom.

Then the UK threaten to storm an embassy too?

Those in the anti-Assange camp have accepted authority as truth; and rejected truth as their authority. They are unconscious, asleep and effectively culpable of the worst excesses in contemporary western culture. If the absence of a condom distracts you from the exposed torture and war crimes there is your guilt, your impramatur to these excesses - you enable them and give fuel to their continuance.

The game at play is to shut-up, discredit, disrupt, destroy Assange and Wikileaks as an example to anyone in future thinking of either Whistleblowing or publishing classified documents.

It is not about a condom.