>"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." (Swedish Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné).
That quote comes from before the EAW was issued. If it had any legal significance Assange's lawyers would have referred to it. I'm not sure why you are referring to it, since you must know all this.
>Try the actual court ruling. Section 142 is relevant, as are the closing remarks.
Did you mean to refer to a different section? Section 142 mostly just contains the submission from the Swedish prosecutor explaining why Assange can't be charged until he's arrested. It certainly doesn't say anything to indicate that the investigation could move beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage without an arrest. This claim of yours remains unsourced.
>The British courts never ruled that Assange's behavior constituted rape.
I said they ruled that Assange's alleged actions constitute rape, as indeed they did. It is not their business to rule on whether his actual actions constituted rape, as they're determining whether or not he is to be extradited, not putting him on trial for rape. (See 71 of the High Court judgment for a very clear explanation of this.)
> There was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable
This is simply false and I'm kind of surprised that you'd make this claim. Part 72: "Nonetheless...we will express our view on what difference it would have made if we had taken [the material in the prosecution file] into account in determining whether the description of the conduct was fair and accurate." Section 77: "It must therefore follow in respect of offence 1 that the challenge made fails, even if the extraneous material was taken into account." In other words, the court considered this issue and decided that (a) the description was reasonable and (b) that it didn't matter in any case whether it was or it wasn't. You may not like conclusion (b), but you should not let this obscure the fact that the court also drew conclusion (a).
>The person you are citing as an expert is either confused or malicious.
Again, you're getting mixed up. Greenwald pointed out that the Swedish government can veto extradition requests. He did not say that they can authorize extradition requests without the approval of the Swedish courts. In your previous post you said "...extradition from Sweden to the United States [does not] require permission from the Swedish courts". This claim false, so far as I can see, and unsourced. Neither Greenwald not the experts he cites say anything to support it.
> If you want to convince me that this is an "ordinary" prosecution
I'm not sure why you keep going off on this tangent. I think it's a legally and morally justified prosecution, and so "ordinary" in that sense. I don't know (and cannot know) whether Assange's public profile is part of the reason that the EAW was issued. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Either way, the EAW remains legitimate on its own terms.
> extradited for allegedly not wearing a condom
You must know this is a dishonest summary of Assange's alleged conduct, so I suppose there is no point in correcting it (the High Court judgment has the details).