Do you realize that Assange had nonviolent, consensual sex with those two women and it's only a quirk of the Swedish legal system that the word "rape" being used in relation to the charges against him?

Assange's actions would not be a crime under US law, and would by no means be described by anything close to the word rape.

> and it's only a quirk of the Swedish legal system

Source? The NYT article says nothing about the legal criteria here.

So, your authoritative source on the merit of a case is the lawyer of the very same guy who is being accused? I hope you see the error in that.

There has been coverage of this elsewhere. I didn't have time earlier to find it so I just pasted in the link other had posted which explains the distinction.

Assange did not force anyone to have sex or physically violate anyone. Swedish law calls it "rape" when a woman has regrets about sex later on.

"Assange did not force anyone to have sex or physically violate anyone."

Well we don't know, do we. You seem to be very certain he didn't, I'm wondering what you're basing that on. It seems like the conspiracy theory is the only 'reason' being given.

"Swedish law calls it "rape" when a woman has regrets about sex later on."

Right. Do you feel a claim like that passes the smell test? Or do you have any other sources that are not Assange himself or his lawyer? You seem to be referring to one of the articles that basically quotes one of these two, I have yet to see one that actually substantiates this. Furthermore I haven't seen the lawyer say what you are saying, either; he's just claiming that there was no rape, that it was consensual.

I am under the impression that it was revealed by Swedish officials that neither woman claimed that she had been physically assaulted.

That would make it different. However, I have seen a few suggestions on forums in this direction, but no statements in newspapers or similar to this effect. If the prosecutor knows and is convinced that there was no coercion nor deceit, and still presses a case, that I would object to. I have no reason (no even just somewhat 'objective' sources, as in not coming directly from the accused) to believe that this is the case though.

Then again I'm not following it any closer than the most prominent articles that make the popular nerd news sites, and a mainstream headline here or there, so it's very well possible that I'm not up to date on all aspects.

I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding something. I read the whole press release, and see nothing in there about any Swedish legal "quirks" regarding the definition of rape. In fact, it takes the position that Assange's actions have not met any possible definition of rape: "the allegations...do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape".

In Sweden, the definition of "rape" is when a woman has any regrets about having had sex. In this case, the women found out Assange had slept with both of them, decided to file the complaint.

They have both stated that the sex was consensual.

Wait, you mean they assumed he was innocent until he was proven guilty. That IS shocking. How dare they.

And Reiser's case proves that Assange is a rapist, no doubt?