Dear Swatantra,

With respect. Just one of the questions that springs to mind is, *is* there any music to face? One could also interject, and who exactly is paying the piper here?

Two women he had sex with now claim he raped them. He vigourously denies it. Why should he return to Sweden to repeat his denial again? Remember he is an innocent man according to both UK and Swedish law. There's no requirement for innocent people to answer anything or go anywhere in cases like this, or for that matter any other type.

We can and should conclude that he is telling the truth, until the opposite is proved. That's the basis of our system of justice. He isn't half-guilty, or half-innocent. Nothing has been proved. He is 100% innocent until he is charged with something and found guilty in a court.

And would you, or should he, have faith in Swedish justice, especially after the prosecutors office in Stockholm leaked his name and the circumstances to the Swedish press, linking his name with a double rape? And what about them getting Interpol involved on such a weak basis? An international arrest order when one only wants to interview him, rather draconian no? He's an international criminal being hunted down across Europe and that's before there are any charges? Bit strange. And his Swedish lawyers agree. They say they have never, ever, heard of the Swedish authorities going to Interpol before any charges have been made. They are shocked and incredulous, and it makes Swedish justice seem ridiculous, which reflects badly on their profession. So the affair is hardly uncontroversial in Sweden either.

Swedes are also embarrassed that people have now got the impression that one can be charged with rape, which is a serious crime, if a condom breaks under intercourse, which is the impression people all over the world have got.

Finally, how can one argue that the conduct is equal to an extradition offence, when the Swedish authorities don't believe there is enough evidence to bring charges?

In the world we live in; after Irag, which was a massive crime, American death squads roaming the globe, attacks on Pakistan, murdering civilans, torture, waterboarding, and one and on. Who would have faith in western, bourgeois "justice" if all these crimes can go unpunished?

Clem the Gem, I don't think people who post on comments on blogs are representative of anyone but themselves. Quite a few of the people who post here appear to be right wing.

No, writeon, accusing you of tending towards misogyny isn't unreasonable.

"How does one prove what happened when it's his words against theirs, and there's no witnesses and no evidence."

Your words. Explain why this doesn't apply to every other rape case where it's one person's word against another's, no-one saw what happened, and there's no physical evidence. Do you believe that, under those circumstances, there should be no charges or further investigation? Do you really believe that?

God! I don't believe this. It's not only totally unreasonable. It's ridiculous and absurd. My comment have absolutely nothing to do with misogyny. Saying that Assange is a innocent man who hasn't been charged with anything is a fact, not an opinion. There has been no trial. Saying that the women's alligations are weak and thin, isn't misogyny, it's a fact, otherwise there would be charges and he wouldn't have been allowed to leave Sweden. This is simple, obvious stuff, not too hard to understand.

I was referring specifically to this case, not every other rape case. All these cases are different.

Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove, for various reasons, even with evidence; but without any physical evidence of rape, or witnesses, or a confession, it's virtually impossible to get a conviction in a court of law.

Normally without evidence in a Criminal Trial, not a Civil Trial, because of the seriousness of the charges and the possibility of a long prison sentence if one is found guilty, it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty. Here obviously without any physical evidence, (a torn condom isn't really proof of anything and as the sex was consensual why keep it?) or a witness, there is reasonable doubt about what really happened. No Swedish court is going to find him guilty of a crime and certainly not rape.

In a criminal case it's highly unusual, if not impossible to convict someone without evidence or some kind of proof, words just don't cut it alone. Is that clear enough?

In theory, if, IF, in every other rape case there was no evidence, and no witnesses, and no proof that a crime had been committed, then it's highly unlikely as the law and courts are configured that an investigation would proceed or that charges would be made, because if there is no evidence that a crime has been committed there can be no trial and no conviction. It's simple. One cannot convict someone in a criminal trial based solely on an uncoroberated claim, without a confession of guilt from the defendent.

Under these circumstances, I don't just believe, I know, that an investigation would be futile, because there would be nothing to investigate, and no trial and no conviction. This is so true and so painfully obvious that it's embarrassing to have to point it out.

ah, you beat me to it... though I wouldn't have bothered with the pointless snippiness.

I see the note about a jury of his peers has been redacted without acknowledgement.

We shouldn't jump to conclusions. Assange shhould stop messing around and face the music and return to Sweden or America. If their Justice system can't get to the truth of the matter, then which Justice system can. He will also have the opportunity of putting up a credible defence to his wikileaks.

George,

What exactly do you know about Sweden or it's highly controversial and complex laws relating to sex? Does it matter? Well, I think it does, because some knowledge is usful in putting this affair into perspective.

Arguably Assange could not be charged with "rape" in Britain, under British law. Rape is a truly terrible crime and the linking of his name, and indirectly Wikileaks, is highly emotive and tendentious, which is probably the point, making it a classic sex-smear. Which given the UK's history in this area should come as no surprise to anyone.

This entire affair is not only devilishly complex, like Sweden's sex-crime laws, but the more one examines it the stranger it becomes. This case is highly political because of who Assange is. It is very, very, unusual for the Swedish authorities to pursue a foreigner like this for such a serious crime on the basis of so little real, concrete, evidence, apart from the statements of two of the women involved, who are working in tandem.

This is why the first court dropped the case. There is no evidence and it all boils down to his word against theirs, his version of events against theirs. How on earth does one prove who is telling the truth about what happened in the privacy of the bedroom during the act of sex between two people?

Was it good for you love?
Er... no, not really.
Really? Well, I thought it was the greatest sex I've ever had!
Really?
Yeah! What's the matter now?
Nothing.
Come on, tell me.
Well, you promised not to come in my mouth.
I didn't.
Yes you did.
OK, I'm sorry, but you know how it is?
No I don't. I didn't say you could.
But it's hard not to and you give such good head Kristina.
I think you raped me.
What!
You raped me. You know I didn't want you to.
I'm sorry, Kristina, really sorry
But you raped me

Now the above is a kind of grotesque parody of what can happen in the bedroom between two people. Misunderstandings about what is allowed and what isn't, and this is even more pronounced when it's a one night stand between two people who don't reeally know each other that well, and they come from different countries with different norms and sexual, bedroom, etiquette.

But to label someone, who just happens to be at the top of the world's most powerful empire's hate list, a rapist and a sex-criminal, based only on the words and interpretation of two of the people involved, is going a bit far, which is why the first prosecutor dropped the case, because even if there was a "crime" it is impossible to prove in a court of law.

But the damage to Assange, even if there is no case and he's found not guilty, has been colossal. The mud and the smear will stick, like shit on a wall, and that is the whole point of the entire media exercise. Public, character assassination.

Also it is probably easier for the United States to bully a small country like Sweden with a new, rightwing government that is eager to please, and force the Swedes to hand him over to the Americans for trial on some more trumped up charges about national security.

"But the damage to Assange, even if there is no case and he's found not guilty, has been colossal."

I doubt that it wlil bother him that much.

"Leaking classified government without discretion is, as should be obvious to everyone, irresponsible."

Clearly not as millions of people worldwide find it to be a highly responible act in the interests of democratic transparency.

I am reminded of Bill Clinton and his cigar. Is this just a complaint about not using a condom during casual sex. If the person has HIV this is a big deal - but isn't this otherwise a lack of proportion. I want to see sex crimes prosecuted but I fear this makes women look mendacious and ridiculous.

Writeon, listen to yourself! This is shameful. Effectively you're saying that the allegations shouldn't be investigated because it's a difficult crime to prove. Would you dream of saying such a thing in the context of another alleged rape? Your approval of Assange's actions are pulling you into misogyny.

As for your last paragraph, it's probable that the Swedish secret service got involved? Well, let's say it's possible. And if they did, then the CIA leant on various people to shaft Assante? Again, possible. On the other hand, perhaps Assante sexually assaulted two women. That's also possible.

This affair is turning into a wonderfull game of chess, greed versus truth ... good luck Mr Assange .. the pen is still more powerfull than the sword.

Why is the New Stateman publishing this piece? Doesn't the law in this country still defend the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

One of the many more interesting journalistic points of interest would be how the wheels of justice can work very differently depending on who is on trial?

The Swedes have only come up with unsubstantiated alligations, no charges against Assange have been made. There are no independent witnesses, and no physical evidence, apart from the statements of the two women involved, but they collaborated before they visited the police together. This alone in the UK would taint their statements.

How does one prove what happens in a bedroom if two people disagree about what took place. It is one person's word against the others, notoriously difficult to prove anything in these circumstances.

That's why the original prosecutor didn't even want to interview Assange, or make charges, or issue any kind of warrant for his arrest. What would be the point? Do they think that Assange would admit to raping two women, even if he had?

But the two women involved weren't satisfied. They went to the press with their story. They found a lawyer who specialises in this area. They found another prosecutor in another town who was more sympathetic, and once the story was leaked the snowball started to roll and grew and grew.

At arround this time SAPO the Swedish security services probably got involved. They watch high-profile foreigners like Assange carefully. Especially if their colleagues in the CIA are interested in an idividual. The cooperation between the two security services is close. Also one has to remember that Sweden has soldiers in Afghanistan as well, so Sweden is an ally of the United States, and the new rightwing government is earger to show willingness in relation to the Americans.

Ok boys and girls.... It's medication time.....medication time.....then take your naps..

I really try to refrain from name calling, but I must say Lox, you nailed it.

This reminds me of the Dreyfus Affair and Emile Zola's J'accuse.

When the people with the power want to get someone they do it ruthlessly.

Assange doesn't stand much of a chance in the British media nor in our legal system.

American terrorist at work again. These trumped up charges are gonna embassas the "forces at work" more than Wikileaks could have. We are all witnesses to the most dispicable act on human freedom since the US government said Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11

Google "sex by surprise," you stupid fools spouting nonsense

I have visited Sweden many times and in many respects it is one of the more transparent countries on many aspects that I have come across. It is almost enshrined in the Swedish way of life. However I am concerned that the jury is made up of politically appointed lay judges. It depends on how much these people are lent on by the right-wing US sponsored politicians.