Assange is worried about facing a kangaroo court in Sweden! The Sweds have a better human rights record than Britain! Assange simply couldn't believe no meant no. By his own admission, he went with the women, and had sex with both of them. The one woman's complaint is that when Assange didn't had a condom, she said no and he forced her. He then forced himself on the other woman who was asleep.

If this story was told of an American, who had admited to having gone with the women, you've be demanding his castraition before the trial! Equal justice please.

Take this phoney and burn him on the fire with the rest of the straw men.

What are you afraid of?

I always think you can smell the stink of rape apologists: so why don't you act upon your sense of smell?

Chiron is right. This isn't about Assange going to Sweden to face trial but about his being extradited to the USA and facing - what? The same justice as Bradley Manning?

This isn't justice in operation - it's the law being used to shut up a subversive voice.

Chir0n, your argument makes no sense, the UK has an extradition treaty with the US and the US authorities could request extradition here if they wished. Requesting onward extradition from Sweeden would require the intervention of both the Sweedish and English courts seeming putting Assange in a better rather than a worse position. Do you have some insight into the particular nature of the operation of the US-Sweedish extradition act that makes Assange's position more precarious?

@Jimbo. Aside from the fact that, according to many legal experts, extradition from the UK is a little harder, the nature of Sweden's extradition treaty with America gives the USA's judiciary priority. This means it's a tidier extradition giving them ALL the power, which they'll want if they're going to incarcerate a foreign national while a secret tribunal (at which Assange will not be given the opportunity to defend himself) decides if he's committed espionage - a crime that in the US potentially carries the death penalty.

Chir0n, except EU law disagrees with you:
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13.XII.1957, Article 15 – Re-extradition to a third state: "Except as provided for in Article 14, paragraph 1.b, the requesting Party shall not, without the consent of the requested Party, surrender to another Party or to a third State a person surrendered to the requesting Party and sought by the said other Party or third State in respect of offences committed before his surrender"

Of all countries, it seems so strange that it is Sweden that is choosing to put Truth on Trial. Telling the truth is likely to be punishable by death. Obama awaits, drooling.

But Swedish prisons are like holiday camps...not proper jails like Brixton or the Scrubs: he won't have to worry about being Leroy's bitch...

watched a very interesting documentary on RT about activists in the US now being directly labelled as terrorists and sent to guantanamo style institutions within US borders. they are crushing dissent in aid of the corporations. assange will be next. even though i still doubt his authenticity and have feeling he works for at least one of the intelligence services, if he doesnt work for the cia/fbi then he may have difficulties ahead

its a shit world we live in and its getting a lot shittier by the day

@ above, cuckoo icke stuff

Its about time that Assange had the courage to face up to his conviction.

"Highcourt upholds European Arrest Warrant for rape, unlawful molestation, and sexual coertion."

I'm not sure that headline is an accurate description of the Highcourt's judgement, though it is pretty dramatic, which I suppose is the point.

The Highcourt hasn't examined the factual basis, the evidence, the witnesses, on which the issuing of the warrant is based. In fact such an approach would be irrelevant, so they haven't done it. The UK courts aren't meant to review the case, only speedily carry out the warrant.

What the Highcourt has done is say that the EAW is valid and Assange should be extradited under the terms of the treaty relating to the warrant.

To give the impression that the Highcourt, which I think the headline implies, has looked at the charges and decided that Assange 'should' answer the serious alligations for rape, sexual molestation, and sexual coercion, is, I believe misleading.

A detailed examination of the affair, which can hardly be called a case, because Assnage hasn't acutally been charged with anything, (though one gets the impressioon that he has been charged with 'rape, unlaw molestation, and sexual coercion' from reading the UK press) leads one to the conclusion that this 'affair' will never result in charges against Assange once he's back in Sweden, though one never knows.

The affair and the contradictory statements from witnesses two women involved, is so full of holes, that it's absurd. No wonder the first prosecutor in Stockholm rejected the alligations as unprovable in court. That was the correct result.

It's virtually incoceivable that a competent Swedish judge could ever find Assange guilty of the crimes he's alleged to have committed, that's if there is a trial, which is doubtful.

The only reason this affair has developed a life of its own on this extraordinary scale, despite the extraordinary lack of any evidence or eye-witnesses to confirm that any criminal acts ever took place in the privacy of the bedroom between two people, is because of Assange's status as an international celebrity.

If he'd only been a plumber from Bradford, given the same circumstances, and if he'd stayed and completed a proper police interview, there would have been no case, no charges, and no trial.

Assange has no more and no less right than Dominic Strauss-Kahn. If he's facing allegations, he has to answer them. I don't remember anyone shouting "conspiracy" when Strauss-kahn was under allegation - if anything, there was an assumption of guilt by the media.

Hi swatantra nandanwar: What sort of conviction do you mean? A conviction in law for a crime committed, or a firmly-held belief? I'm not aware of any legal conviction (yet!), but have I missed something? Or did you just mean his belief that he is innocent?

The parasitic jewish cuckoo.
gmac has spent far too much time squatting in a cloud cuckoo land vipers' nest. I am no fan of David Icke and his 'stuff'. With regards to the goyim; we must observe the Khazar jew at face value: botanically,the jew is but destructive freeloading mistletoe; ornithologically, the scrounging insectivorous cuckoo. gmac take my advice, lay off David Icke and read more of Joseph Goebbels.

What happened I wonder to my last comment about the bizarre details of this weird affair? They were quite interesting and infromative. But I suppose facts are becoming rather quaint these days.

Good, access again. So I'll be quick.

After two weeks AA delivered a condom she'd apparently kept after sex with Assange. The famous split condom which had soured their sexual relationship.

Strangely, according to leaks from the Swedish sieve; sorry the police, who like their UK collegues get paid for this stuff; the famous condom didn't contain Assange's DNA - which is a bit odd. Was it washed and kept as trophy before the lovers fell out? Finally according to other sources in Sweden, the condom didn't split, but was cut with a sharp object, not Assange's thingy. One can apparently see the difference if one examines the condom with an electron microscope.

What does this information, if accurate, and everything else has leaked from the affair, what does this tell one about the credibility of the states star witness AA?

But I thought all men were rapists....

It sounds like Writeon is working extra hard for Assange's defence team. What are you writeon ... judge jury and executioner.. wait until the trial or I bet you think he shouldn't even go on trial.

Where do you get 'your' 'evidence' .. how much is it made up and how much of it is real? A lot of women are looking right through you now and they can see a big bright sign saying 'Bullshitter'. Stop lying.