Well, Sweden is neither the U.S. nor Britain so that's no surprise. What he is suspected of (on "reasonable grounds") is "Sexuellt ofredande * 5, Våldtäkt and Sexuellt tvång" which literally translates into "sexual molestation, rape and sexual coercion". In other words, there is going to be about more than just a broken condom in court.
Big fan, but you always come out confused when you talk about the Assange case. Julian is indeed accused of rape. The specific accusation that is leveled at him does not have an exact equivalent in British law, but that's because they are two different legal systems written in two different languages. The crime that Assange is accused of in Sweden *includes* rape and other types of forced sex. You even make the (honestly) stupid assertion that he has violated a law that doesn't exist in Britain. But of course it does. It is a regular sexual coercion law. (Sexuellt ofredande * 5, Våldtäkt and Sexuellt tvång.)
Furthermore it makes no sense for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the U.S., especially in the way you describe it. If there's indeed a death penalty or other cruel penalty accosiated with the crimes the U.S. would accuse him of, then there's no way he could be extradited from Sweden (that would be totally illegal and doesn't happen). Any other accusations just wouldn't fly anyway.
You usually paint a shady picture of the events leading up to the police investigation an trial, but this is just a wrong this to do. If you've followed criminal cases before then you should know that things are pretty often not what they appear when details leak to the press. After a trial has been concluded and the protocols can be read, the picture that emerges are more often than not the same as before the trial. In fact the whole point of a trial is to make any hastily jumped-to conclusions unnecessary. You make very hasty conclusions about the case in which both Swedish and U.K. prosecution has deemed the charges reasonable, in other words believable.
Also, you perpetuate a horribly tired old myth about the grounds of an embassy legally being the property of the country it belongs to. I repeat; it's a myth, and a very old and tired one. The embassy of Ecuador sits on U.K. soil. The preposterous suggestion about "invasion" is completely off the wall. The U.K. need only revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status and grab Assange.
I mean, here's a source if you want one. Again, it is literally rape, sexual molestation and sexual coercion, no mumbo-jumbo.
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/varlden/kallor-assange-far-politisk-asyl-i-ecuador
Well, Sweden is neither the U.S. nor Britain so that's no surprise. What he is suspected of (on "reasonable grounds") is "Sexuellt ofredande * 5, Våldtäkt and Sexuellt tvång" which literally translates into "sexual molestation, rape and sexual coercion". In other words, there is going to be about more than just a broken condom in court.
Big fan, but you always come out confused when you talk about the Assange case. Julian is indeed accused of rape. The specific accusation that is leveled at him does not have an exact equivalent in British law, but that's because they are two different legal systems written in two different languages. The crime that Assange is accused of in Sweden *includes* rape and other types of forced sex. You even make the (honestly) stupid assertion that he has violated a law that doesn't exist in Britain. But of course it does. It is a regular sexual coercion law. (Sexuellt ofredande * 5, Våldtäkt and Sexuellt tvång.)
Furthermore it makes no sense for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the U.S., especially in the way you describe it. If there's indeed a death penalty or other cruel penalty accosiated with the crimes the U.S. would accuse him of, then there's no way he could be extradited from Sweden (that would be totally illegal and doesn't happen). Any other accusations just wouldn't fly anyway.
You usually paint a shady picture of the events leading up to the police investigation an trial, but this is just a wrong this to do. If you've followed criminal cases before then you should know that things are pretty often not what they appear when details leak to the press. After a trial has been concluded and the protocols can be read, the picture that emerges are more often than not the same as before the trial. In fact the whole point of a trial is to make any hastily jumped-to conclusions unnecessary. You make very hasty conclusions about the case in which both Swedish and U.K. prosecution has deemed the charges reasonable, in other words believable.
Also, you perpetuate a horribly tired old myth about the grounds of an embassy legally being the property of the country it belongs to. I repeat; it's a myth, and a very old and tired one. The embassy of Ecuador sits on U.K. soil. The preposterous suggestion about "invasion" is completely off the wall. The U.K. need only revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status and grab Assange.