Simple, send Swedish investigators to interrogate him in England. They want him physically in Sweden so that he can be nabbed by other governments wanting him. I wonder if Sweden can make it much simpler by entering into an agreement with him that he will not be extradited to countries other than Sweden.

Who would want to go to a country where the rule of law is Guilty until proven innocent on trumped up charges ?

The rule of law in this case is that any person charged with a crime of this nature must prove he is innocent ... MUST PROVE ....

Can any man here prove that he is innocent of rape in his last sexual encounter, if his partner was to charge him with rape? I don't think so!

If this coward is innocent, then go face your accusers. But you are still guilty of receiving stolen files. That is why he is so afraid. He got caught up in ego and no he is gonna pay a hefty price. I hope they nail him to the wall. He should be in prison for receiving all the STOLEN documents. You can not go through life abiding by the laws you want to and think that is ok.

Moonbeamracer, what are you smoking? Under Swedish law one is not guilty until proven innocent... one is innocent until proven guilty... just as in the US and England and other modern countries.

Two women have accused Assange of committing crimes. The police are required to investigate. This investigation naturally includes interviewing the accused. Unfortunately, rather than meet with the police Assange chose to run.

Assange's ludicrous assertion that Sweden will extradite him to the US is based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Sweden has no more history of extraditing criminal suspects to the US than England does. Assange is equally at risk in both countries... that is to say he is at no risk of being extradited to the US.

Apparently two women with very dubious past are accusing him and there are no evidence to prove his guilt. If all you want is to interrogate him just send two Swedish officers to England. I do believe this to be the best and cheapest solution. Cheaper for the tax payers at least but bureaucrats could care less about the tax payer moneys.

His organization embarrassed governments and exposed US military coverups and that is why he is in danger of extradition.

Kristian113,

Why do you call him a coward? Would you have the courage to expose wrong doing by your government?

Martha-2024651,

Assange is equally at risk in both countries... that is to say he is at no risk of being extradited to the US.

I am afraid that is beyond naive.

If all you want is to interrogate him just send two Swedish officers to England. I do believe this to be the best and cheapest solution.

And why should he receive special treatment over anyone else that doesn't want to be extradited to another country? Assange is simply an arrogant, self-important narcissist that believes he is above the laws of the "common folk" beneath him.

Looks like the cry baby gets more time in the spotlight while he shirks his manly duty to face up to the charges. The guy's a pathetic egomaniac.

Anyone questioning the facts on the laws of Sweden ... ( the analysis has been left out for brevity and can be read at the included link)

Erling Hellenäs' Blog
The Big Picture and it's Parts

http://erlinghellenas.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-swedish-rape-law/

"An analysis of the Swedish rape law.

Penal Code, Chapter 6, Section 1

“A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.

This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.

If, in view of the circumstances associated with the crime, a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed for rape.

If a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered gross, a sentence to imprisonment for at least four and at most ten years shall be imposed for gross rape. In assessing whether the crime is gross, special consideration shall be given to whether the violence or threat was of a particularly serious nature or whether more than one person assaulted the victim or in any other way took part in the assault or whether the perpetrator having regard to the method used or otherwise exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality.” (Chapter 6 of the Swedish Penal Code 1962:700)"

Anyone that has any question about the "truth" about the Swedish law should read the entire blog and comments .. the Laws of Sweden in this regard are "GUILTY TILL PROVEN INIOCENT"
As part of this discussion is additionally the following blog by "Linnea " a portion below :

"I know that internationally (from personal conversations) a lot of people have a problem with the burden of proof falling on the accused rather than the accuser. This is not usually so abroad, or in Sweden, as I understand it and people thinks it’s completely opposed to “innocent until proven guilty”.

Yes, the consent issue is debated, there is a lot of problem with it and the clearest way would be if the law just simply stated that consent must be given, and if so, what form of consent – verbally, written, implicit, explicit. I, however, think that in this piece of legislation it’s implied that consent must be given, implicitly or explicitly. That is the issue with penetrating someone who is asleep, isn’t it? Because that person isn’t conscious at the moment, they could have at any time leading up to penetration (or lightly touching with the genitals) changed his/her mind and said no. "

To the ignorant, the ill informed, & prejudiced .... to shift laws to eliminate the concept of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" for the satisfaction of radical feminist demands is the most radical form of sexual discrimination in history, overturning the most important concept that the American Constitutional system has offered to the people of the world ...

Not by being a criminal. I would have no problem. Since I was in military, the only injustice I saw was that the WORLD has turned its back on countries like Afghanistan. Letting a government kill indiscriminately its own citizens. The atrocities the Taliban have committed against its own people was disgusting. They still kill women and children. The only countries with enough balls to actually do something to help are the US and a few brave countries.

Assange is charged with a deplorable crime. Rape. Why should he not face his accusers? IF he is innocent, then he will prevail. I am sure he and his criminal cohorts will illegally hack into government computers and print his version of truth.

He put many innocent lives at risk by publishing STOLEN documents. No one can say they were not stolen. He is guilty in that matter by what he did. He hides because he is a coward and can not face what he did.

I personally think he should be brought here to stand trial for his part with his accomplice Manning. Who did steal secret documents.

If I thought there was any injustice being made, or done I would report it. I live my life honestly and abide by the law. Just not the ones that suit me.

In response to you.

How convenient to release the information first and then seek donationons on your website. I'm sure those donations don not go to his legal defense.

How convenient to release the information first and then seek donations on your website.

Wikileaks asked for donations on their site far before this incident.

Wikileaks asked for donations on their site far before this incident.

Yea, to support Assange's pathetic little existence ...

@blonde

Several observations about this case:

1) There never was a question of age of consent in the Assange case. That was Berlisconi in Italy. Both the women who filed complains were near Assange's own age. The accusation that one of the women was underage originated with Glen Beck and was tossed around by Rush Limbaugh. Both women were in their 30's or so.

2) The extradition is not to face charges. No charges have yet been filed in Sweden. The extradition is for questioning only. The Assange position is that the Swedish police had ample opportunity, several weeks in fact, before heleft for England and a pre-arranged speaking engagement. The U.S. typically will not extradict a person before charges are actually filed as a "true bill", meaning that the equivalent of a grand jury has certified that there is enough evidence to breing the case to trial.

3) The facts of Assange's sex with the two women are consistent between both Assange and the two women's accounts. It is only the interpretation of those events that differs. The women agree that the sex started out to be consensual. One contends that he had sex with her in the morning while she was sober and still asleep. And that he did not inquire about birth control. I can't imagine that, but is it a possibility that a woman could sleep through the initial phases of sex --- wouldn't there be a great lack of lubrication? But her contention is that by beginning the sex act just hours after the previous sex between them is technicallyt rape. And the other says that when a condom burst during sex that he should have known that it burst and should have stopped therefore it is also rape. His contention is only that he did not know of the condom's failure until after the act was completed. Not much there, let along enough to spend many millions trying to get the person extradicted.

4) Why extradition? It would be much easier and much less costly for a couple of Swedish officers to fly to Britain, interview him, and then file for extradition if charges are placed.

5) Why did the two women only make a police complaint when they both discovered that he had sex with the other one? Could it be more revenge than anything else?

Assange is a little pissant fool who destroyed his own reputation...if he even had one to begin with.

You want to be a hero? Expose something from a country known to execute individuals through suicide bombings or sniper attacks. Like China or Iran.

Anonymous? Seriously? The little kiddy hacker group of anarchists and masturbation-bored children?

The real heros are the ones who get killed as a result of Wikileaks' "safety plan": IE, spreading the unredacted files across the internet.

i think he has NO morals or values.

He's just anti-American. Notice what Wikileaks does and doesn't post.

The message being that destruction of national security is perfectly fine as long as there's a 0.1% chance something evil and bad is exposed?

Morons have no idea the consequences.

At a minimum 90% of what is classified as a matter of national security is nothing more than a CYA mentality by government agencies. Tell me, what was released by Wikileaks that endangered US security? Not a single thing. Wikileaks even redacted some names and info THEY thought could be harmful. Even the US government and the Pentagon has admitted there have been no national security breaches due to the Wiki releases...just embarrassments. Tough.

Wikileaks redacted names from the publicly released documents, yes.

However...you'd have to be a complete and utter fool to not realize that their choice to leave the "in the clear" version out on multiple "secure" servers, and threatening to release them if they're shut down, is a matter of national security and a threat to the individuals named within. In addition, Wikileaks is @!$%#ing clueless when it comes to what is and isn't harmful. Their goal is to damage the United States. You can't trust them to care about the poor saps in harm's way more than they would for ants.

Bloody @!$%#ing post errors.

Good post, you've summed up Assange's pathetic existence well...

Martha your a joke. Do u also call our soldiers cowards too! Im sure u dont because somehow you think they are different. They fight for our freedom too! even though they are often used to do shady things for political points and for money and oil. but any way. besides these girls willingly had sex with the guy, they are complaining that they didnt realize he didnt use a condom. LOL really girl if u dont ask first then thats your own problem. besides condoms are 100% against pregnancy or stds so since urr willing to screw the guy u should be willing to accept any consequence, dont cry rape cuz u feel bad about what u did!

E-

You should not be insulting other newsvine users.

Thanks, David, for the assist... I never listen to moronic critics especially when their best defense of a rapist is "she asked for it". Assange is fighting for nothing more than his own self aggrandizement.

@E

Are you retarded with the 100% effectiveness statement? You do realize they state right on the condom package they're only 99% effective...