> Assange has not been charged with a crime because Swedish law requires him to be present in Sweden before they do so.
He is wanted for arrest to be questioned on suspicion. He has not been interviewed. It would be absolutely shockingly unprecedented even for Sweden if they intend to charge him based on testimony that one prosecutor didn't even believe indicated a crime had taken place, without a formal complaint (see below), without physical evidence and without having conducted an interview to get his side of the story.
You seem to try to make it out as if this is just a formality and he's "practically charged", just not technically because they need to wait until he'se there first.
If this is just a technicality, then this case stinks to high heaven based on the information that's been disclosed about this case so far.
The problem is, if it isn't just a technicality, and they seriously want to do an interview before making a reasoned decision about whether to charge him, they've had several opportunities to do so a long time ago, and refused, in order to spend a year and a half trying to get him into a Swedish jail.
In either case something is up. Possibly just the career goals of the prosecutor. But this is not how this plays out for less high profile cases in Scandinavia. Not even in Sweden.
> As I understand it both women claim he had sex non-consensually with them
As I understand it, both women described something that the police decided to interpret as non-consensual sex without a formal complaint from either of them - an interpretation one of the prosecutors who reviewed the case thought was nonsense.
> It wasn't,
His behavior has not been proven to be anywhere near the media portrayal of the complaint, nor has the testimony of the women in question been under any kind of serious scrutiny. Maybe it was just like that. Maybe it was worse. Or nothing criminal might have happened.
After all the case only still exists because it was in a pretty much unprecedented manner picked up by a second prosecutor known for her hardline views and desire to significantly tighten up Swedish rape laws well beyond anywhere else in Europe after one prosecutor dismissed it on the belief that there had not been any crime.
At the same time, one of the women tried to remove tweets that described how she'd had a great time with Assange after the alleged rape, and a blog post describing exactly how to use a similar method of going to the police to describe a situation as a legal method of taking revenge on someone.
Assange might very well be guilty, but there are enough bizarre things about this case that if he is innocent, he has every reason to fight this extradition, particularly given his background, out of a concern for the motivations of the prosecution. As such, using his decision to fight extradition as an indicator of what he thinks or doesn't think about what behavior is reasonable or whether or not he is guilty of a crime is flawed.