We all know the story. Julian Assange is facing rape accusations in Sweden, and while he cannot be charged now since he is overseas, he'll be charged when he returns, as Sweden cannot and has not done otherwise. But that's okay by him. He's not running from the law. No, he simply fled to the UK, and then to the Ecuadorian embassy to try to stop the US from extraditing him, which they curiously haven't bothered trying to do already, but there must be a reason for that that we just don't know. All Assange wants is a simple guarantee that he won't be extradited; he's only trying to negotiate for that, not to get the charges dropped. Everyone's said it. His attorneys, speaking on his behalf. Even the president of Ecuador has said it. He's not fleeing prosecution in Sweden, merely persecution from the US for being a whistleblower. It may seem strange then, now that the Swedish government has told the Australian foreign ministry that they guarantee just that, but clearly that's not good enough for some legitimate reason - perhaps it has to be in writing, or more specific than that, or handed to him by a trained monkey on a bicycle - who knows. But we all know this for sure, that he would NEVER try to skirt rape law by running and hiding, trying to get the charges outright dropped.
Oh, wait, yes he would:
In an interview inside the embassy, he told Telesur he believed the issue "will be solved through diplomacy", the BBC reported.
Assange added: "The Swedish government could drop the case. I think this is the most likely scenario. Maybe after a thorough investigation of what happened they could drop the case.
"I think this will be solved in between six and 12 months. That's what I estimate."
Lets reiterate here. Assange just said:
1) They're trying to solve it through diplomacy. 2) He thinks the most likely scenario is that the Swedish government will drop the charges.
Now, unless you think he's trying to negotiate a guarantee not to extradite, and the Swedish will instead do him a favor and outright drop charges instead because they love him so much... unless you believe something along those lines, it's clear that he is trying to negotiate to have the charges dropped in exchange for ending the diplomatic disaster that he deliberately created.
Does this remind anyone else of him threatening to expose more secrets if arrested (aka, he has them, but he won't "whistleblow" except in his own interest), or when he blackmailed Amnesty International for $700,000 (along with other aid and human rights groups)? Well, at least he's got NYT columnist Bill Keller's support... oh wait, that was a childish prank.
When will people stop supporting this guy? We have real whistleblowing heroes with real causes, one of whom is facing real whistleblowing charges in a real US prison.
And who's not trying to force a government to drop a date rape case against him by creating an international incident.
------
Note: Before replying to anything about the Assange case, you should already have read the UK court ruling, so that you know what the arrest warrant actually says, what the actual levied accusations are, how Assange's attorney admitted misleading the court, witnesses, and the public about whether he was wanted when he left Sweden, and how Assange's defense team's other arguments stood up when cross-examined with the facts. If you repeat a misconception that is debunked within by references to indisputable data (aka, what the EAW actually says, what the prosecution actually says, what Assange's defense team admitted to in court, etc), I will simply refer you to it.
Also note: This has nothing to do with whether or not you personally "believe" the charges - only whether you think that anyone should be above the law and be able to get out of any charges simply because they have prestige and personal status. Also, about those evil, evil Swedish courts... (peer-reviewed methodology here).