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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf (page 24, sorry for pdf link)
I'm no lawyer but doesn't something have to be a crime in both countries in order to be eligible for extradition?
ACCUSATION is not guilt.
http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapd...
Wah wah.
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.