Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

It isn't rape. The charges he is facing are far less serious, as far as I'm aware. Yes, he should be extradited to face Swedish justice for violating Swedish laws, but it isn't worth spending too much public money on.

Let's be very clear here - one reason why the UK police now have to dedicate their resources to this nonsense is because of Mr. Assange's irresponsibility. Some have pointed out that he offered to let the Swedes interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy. Do people not understand what a problem for the rule of law this would be?

He had a lawful extradition hearing by an unbiased court. He then had a lawful appeal hearing by an unbiased court. He even had the High Court, the Supreme Court of the UK, hear his case and uphold the initial hearing judge. If he's free to ignore all of this, then you're in effect creating a two tiered justice system. One for the ordinary citizens, and one for the rich and powerful with rich and powerful friends. That's anathema for a Western justice system that's built on the rule of law. You would have us destroy our civil society and the entire justice system for one spoiled little brat that chants "they're out to get me! They're all out to get me!"? It's too important.

As for the charge - I have to say it's really odd seeing (across the net) some of the same people that say "rape is rape! don't blame the victims!" and the like suddenly jump ship for this guy. It's like Roman Polanski defenders (yes, if you're defending one, you SHOULD be defending the other and vice versa). One charge he potentially faces is not using a condom - after assuring the victim he was wearing one and that she would not consent if he didn't. Given all we know about STDs, pregnancy, and the dangers of unprotected sex it's fairly clear (to me at least) that it's a decently big deal to give the greenlight to lying about having a condom not counting as some kind of sexual assault. He also held one victim down and forced himself on top of her. A third charge stems from his having sexual relations with a sleeping woman (and come on - find me ONE person educated on rape that would claim that sex with an unconscious person is not rape).

These are serious charges. There was a valid extradition request. He had multiple layers of due process and received far more consideration and deliberation than an average person in a similar situation would have faced.

Then there's the consideration of what if the US request his extradition from Sweden. So what? We're not dealing with a US client regime or a dictatorial mess like Syria or somewhere similar. We're talking about an independent, thoroughly neutral, modern Social Democracy. Sweden doesn't have a tinpot judiciary - they have actual due process and laws about when they do and do not extradite people - including to the US. Is it possible that he would be? Yes - but only if he legally should be based on what he's done, what's covered by the US-Swedish extradition treaty, and if it all meets the satisfaction of Swedish judicial officials as to their public policy.

I'm not opposed to truth in government. Heck, I'm not even opposed to wikileaks - I think keeping government honest with its citizens is important. I AM opposed to letting one man ride above the law.

Again, I think a lot of people are being far, FAR to cavalier in how they think about our legal systems. We have checks and balances. We have independent judiciaries that have oversight over these decisions. Mr. Assange went through not only a judicial review of his case, but also two levels of appeals - which is more than is usually required.

Here are the facts. Mr Assange is accused by two women. One accuses him of forcing himself on top of her, sexual assault by deception of said woman (by lying about the presence of a condom knowing that a condom was deemed, by the woman, the only way she'd consent to sex), and in another case he "deliberately molested" her.

The other woman accused him of having sex with her, without a condom, while she was asleep.

Yes - asleep. As in unconscious. As in literally unable to give consent. Sex without consent is rape (or sexual assault in nations that group it together). Could these accusations be wrong and he be proven innocent? Yes - but he's wanted in connection with these crimes. Let him go and face the charges he's wanted for. Instead of flying to the embassy of a man that does NOT have democratic protections and oversight for his people. A man who runs a country that does NOT provide due process, a man who jails journalists, engages in human rights abuses, and is precisely the sort of guy you'd expect a crusader for justice to go after.

Also Assange and his lawyers are making a demand that anyone who spent 1 hour in legal class knows the swedish government cant oblige to even if they wanted. The courts are without political interference in Sweden and all extraditing cases are handled by the courts and not the government or any department there of. There were a case back after 9/11 where two people got extradited by the government w/o due process by the courts that the Assange camp likes to bring up but what they always "forget" to mention is that there were a massive political backlash from it when it got discovered (we're talking impeachment class stuff here).

Whats funny about Assange and wikileaks statements though is that they somehow seem to forget that it was Sweden who took them under its wings back when this all started and Wikileaks got moved to Swedish servers because it was harder to get them there not the mention that "big evil conspiracy" Sweden was the beacon of freedom back when it unconditionally covered Assanges butt Gonna be funny to see what they have to say about Ecuador in afew years. Besides atleast Assange has become a whore for the Anti-USA countries.

He had his own TV show on a russian propaganda channel for Putin where he interviewed pretty much everyone with a beef against the US.

The Ecuadorian president is a coward.

He knows he can score cheap points for pretending to stand up against the big evil USA and the "colonial forces" and pretend he's "holding the barricade" while he at the same time knows there is no risk whatsoever that USA or the UK will actually come after him so he'll never actully be forced to really hold the barricade.