Re: Logic fail
Just to clear this up yet again, he's accused of rape. I haven't seen the sex by surprise crap defence trotted out by his supporters in a while now...
Go and look up the Supreme Court judgement: at this link here.
The court sat on the legality of the European Arrest Warrant system. I think this was the test case for it. And accepted it. That was the only legitimate matter under discussion, since the system as set up does not allow for political or judicial interference in the process. So long as a police force / prosecutor can get the right paperwork in their own country, the other country's police and courts are simply supposed to shut up and hand their citizen over. This is the reason I personally oppose the EAW system, and prefer extradition, even though it's more expensive and time-consuming.
However, the court then went on to consider Julian Assange's other legal arguments. Despite the fact that they were totally irrelevant to the UK courts, and were therefore made for PR purposes only. As I (and the court) said, the EAW doesn't give discretion to this country, we've simply handed some of our sovereignty over to the Swedish prosecutor's office.
The court decided that there was prima facie evidence for 2 counts of rape. It might have been 3, I can't remember if ripping the condom is even still on the charge sheet, or be bothered to check. The first is that he's alleged to have held the first victim down, with his weight rather than by violence, and tried to force himselve on her. She'd said no sex without condom. That is rape in anyone's book (if true). He's then supposed to have stopped that, put his condom on like a good boy, and is alleged to have deliberately damaged it while she wasn't looking.
The other accusation was that he waited until woman number two was asleep, she'd also said no sex without condom, and then had sex with her without one anyway. The Supreme Court ruled that this was also rape under UK law, as it's sex without consent. He'd have had consent with a condom, but none without and someone who's asleep, unconscious or drunk can't give consent.
As Ken Clark got in trouble for saying, some rapes are more serious than others. Assange didn't force himself on some random stranger at knife-point. But what's accused of is a hell of a lot more serious than some 'bedroom hijinks'. And his supporters, and he, do their case a lot of damage by trying to pretend that these charges aren't very serious.
Given it's their word against his, I'd have thought he's quite likely to get found not guilty whatever the truth is.
Finally I don't think you can apply for an EAW unless the alleged crime carries a possible custodial sentence.