I was responding to the Amnesty blog post which wasn't about the rape allegations, but the ethics of Assange seeking help from Ecuador. So I'm not sure really sure how your point relates...
[edit] wont let me respond to your comment below, so I'll just say that while I'm not sure how you measure 'what the world sees as a greater good', its a reasonable point and that the Amnesty blogpost would have made much more sense if it had used the argument that you do...
"Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity."
See the highlighted section. She was asleep. That's almost certainly going to be rape in the UK, the US, Australia or pretty much anywhere else you'd count as civilised.
If only there was some mechanism for putting all the facts in front of a group of people who could work through them and decide whether he really did it or not...
I agree, it's not clear cut. That's why we have due process, and that's all I want to see.
No, it's not. She consented on the condition that he wore a condom. This meant that not wearing a condom made the sex non-consensual, and the normal term for non-consensual sex is rape. It was ruled that in England and Wales the behaviour would be criminal, too.
Did she attempt to remove his penis from her vagina? Did she attempt to push him off of her? Did he physically prevent her from doing so? Did he coerce her using a gun, knife or some other weapon which she identified, and the police have been able to locate? Is there any sign of a struggle?
If a woman lies naked and spread eagle, and a man begins to have intercourse with her, and she makes no move to stop it, but tells him to stop in a calm tone, but in a language he does not understand, is the man raping her?
If her compliance comes from fear (the threat may be real or perceived), if she had been clear previously about a lack of consent or a whole bunch of other situations.
Whethe you could get a criminal conviction under those circumstances is another question but sure, it could be rape.
I hear this repeated a lot, and can't for the life of me understand why it even matters?
The point is: There is an extradition order to Sweden. The Swedish police want to talk to him. He fled the country before his interview.
Last time I checked, you don't get to just tell the police "sorry, not interested" when they are investigating rape allegations. I'm pretty sure that in just about every country in the world, at some point, there are rules dictated that you have a certain level of cooperation with authority. And if you don't, there are consequences.
Nah, not really true. He was never "given permission to leave". There are transcripts of his lawyer setting up the 2nd interview with the authorities. They said they would meet on a Tuesday. Oddly enough, after his attorney discusses when to meet with the police, Assange magically wasn't in the country any more, fleeing 1 day before his interview date.
In further depositions, his attorney said he "can't remember" if he mentioned to his client the pending interview.
And furthermore: What is your point? Politically motivated or not, the police are engaged in an investigation. They have, at some point in time (regardless of the timeframe) decided they are seeking a second interview and will most likely be charging Assange with a crime.
Even if what you said was true (it's not), so what? The simple fact of the matter is, as I said, that Sweden has issued an extradition order. Whether you personally agree or not, it's legal. Everyone involved knows that he will eventually be extradited. Because there is no legal reason for it not to go through.
So as I said previously: I am missing something? How is this so hard to understand?
The authorities were in full possession of the facts of the case at this time.
Then -- weeks later -- they changed their minds.
> There are transcripts of his lawyer setting up the 2nd interview with the authorities.
Montgomery -- Sweden's counsel, remember -- also said that during this conversation, his lawyer said he was unable to contact Assange. Is that in the transcript?
> And furthermore: What is your point?
My point is that the accusation that he fled Sweden is not an established fact.
> Politically motivated or not, the police are engaged in an investigation.
You really don't think it makes any difference if it's politically motivated? No equal access to justice regardless of political opinions?
This is what you are missing.
If everything that was 'legal' was in black and white as you suggest, there would be no need of lawyers or appeal courts.
