Refusing to put a condom is quite different from rape is all the countries except Sweden.
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.
I agree, it's not clear cut. That's why we have due process, and that's all I want to see.
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.
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.
How is this so hard to understand?
Because people are too caught up in America-wants-to-kill-Assange conspiracy theories to bother trying to understand.
Assange is transparently a scumbag at best, and rapist at worst, but this isn't true.
He was given permission to leave Sweden: the authorities had finished with him. They changed their minds weeks later.
And they can talk to him as much as they like. In London. Even in the Ecuadorean embassy. He's offered this much many times.
He cooperated, and now it's escalated due to political motivation.
How is this so hard to understand?
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?
In the London extradition court case, the lawyer for the Swedish authorities (Clare Montgomery) admitted giving Assange permission to leave:
'She said Mr. Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, was told on Sept. 15 that his client was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden."'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457612...
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.