It's called "stealthing", apparently, and it looks like it could be an offence under UK law as he only had "conditional consent": https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/criminal-law...
Don't underestimate how closely tied many European countries are to the United States. Swedish security forces snatched two asylum seekers (that we know of) off the streets in Stockholm in 2001, and handed them over to the CIA. They were immediately flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. All this was done in violation of both Swedish and international law.
Melzer has said in interviews that countries like Sweden have strong legal protections, up until the point at which they consider their own security interests to be at stake. At that point, you can expect all sorts of violations of procedure and law, dirty tricks, etc.
Finally, using Chromium, I was able to translate some pages and I guess they are a legit news organization, though quite young. Their first publication was in January 2018. From reading the wikipedia, it seems they operate a bit like lwn, in that direct links will give you the articles, but you don't get access to all of the direct links unless you're a subscriber.
I don't have any problem believing that Assange did have sex with a sleeping woman without a condom, it fits what I've perceived as his personality. And him locking himself in the embassy after having exhausted his legal means in the UK was his own doing. But that's all about one person, the war crimes are part of a system that doesn't care about him.
This whole mess is candy for conspiracy theorists. Remember that Wikileaks fanned the flames in the middle of Pizza gate: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wik...
The article discusses the exact things you're saying it conceals.
> The interviewee claims to speak fluent Swedish, so there's no way he'd miss it accidentally.
Before accusing the interviewee of dishonesty, perhaps you can read the parts of the article where the interviewee discusses the very things you're saying he omitted. Did you just miss these parts of the article accidentally, or did you intentionally misrepresent the article?
I repeated the commenter's own words back to them, showing the irony that they (the commenter) were the one who omitted information, in a way that is very difficult to explain if they had read the article. I think that's legitimate.
> in a way that is very difficult to explain if they had read the article
It's easy to explain: people remember completely different things in the articles they read, based on their pre-existing feelings and assumptions—just like we see very different things in the world in general. When your feelings and assumptions aren't the same, it's too easy to jump to conclusions about other people, especially online, where we have so little information to go on, and inevitably make up stories about each other to fill in the blanks. (Not talking about you personally—we all do this.) Because these effects lead to stuck, repetitive, and ultimately nasty discussion, the site guidelines try to mitigate them, and commenters here need to follow those.
My working hypothesis is that the commenter probably only skimmed the article, if that. But the really unforgivable part is that that incorrect comment was then voted to the top of the thread. It looks like a lot of people are voting before reading the article.
I'll keep within your guidelines, but my intention was just to point out the irony of the commenter falsely accusing the interviewee of doing something that the commenter themselves was doing.
Assange and a woman have consensual sex. He wants to have sex without a condom, she insist he wears one. Eventually he agrees, and they have sex and then fall asleep in the bed. The next morning she wakes up by him penetrating her. She asks "are you wearing anything?" to which he replies "you". Her main reason she wanted him to wear a condom was fear of STDs, so she thinks there's no point in stopping now since the eventual damage is already done, so they continue. He comes inside her.
When she later asks the police if there's a way of forcing Assange to take an HIV test the police decides that what she's describing constitutes rape, and starts an investigation.
The whole problem is that she gave her consent under the strict condition that he'd wear a condom. When he started having unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping, he didn't have her consent. Call that what you want.
[0] https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/...
Edit: OK, I see that that's mentioned later in the article. But the part about rewriting the statement isn't completely truthful either: > "Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W."
What the mail actually says is that there are two hearings, but only one formal one, and they want the second one included too. The supervisor writes: "Make a new hearing. Paste the text in that and assign the hearing to the case. Sign the hearing."