@Aberglas Re: The rape charges were always bogus
They were not bogus.
They were serious enough that he absconded and created this mess with the help of his then Swedish attorney who admitted so while under cross in the UK. (Timestamp text messages don't lie).
The reason why you didn't see Sweden going to 'interview' Assange in the UK is that the 'interview' was the step required by Swedish law in order to officially charge him with a crime and arrest him. They can't do that on foreign soil. This too came out in the very first of Assange's appeals of the EAW. He lost btw.
Oh and its not just STD but also AIDs. (Yes, I know but there's a distinction in that they are separate tests and examinations.)
Even in the US, in today's climate, sex with an unconscious girl is rape. No way for her to consent. And in Sweden, one of the cases revolves around a girl who consented to sex when he was wearing a condom and she was awake, but was woken by him having sex without a condom which she said no to... (Had he been wearing a condom I guess she would have been fine with it. At least that is what the stories indicated at the time.)
Assange was/is a prat.
What I don't get is why Manning is not willing to testify in front of a Grand Jury. During Manning's article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a Grand Jury) evidence came out that Assange helped Manning with the theft. This evidence never came to trial because Manning plead guilty to those charges so there was no reason to raise this issue. Now Manning dodges the GJ. Why? no double jeopardy could be applied so there's no reason not to testify. Manning is protecting Assange which is what I find interesting.
And also Assange doesn't face the death penalty in any event. He's a co-conspirator and will face less time than Manning was given. He could even end up in a cushy Club Fed and spend his time writing a book.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
