What motivates the outrage over Julian Assange's Political Asylum?

[TorchTheWitch]

12. Yet another "pro-Assange" person that has no idea what the allegations even are

No, both women did NOT consent to certain acts as the allegations bare out. There is no allegation concerning a broken condom either.

AGAIN, these are the allegations against Assange:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

AGAIN, there is no "broken condom" allegation while there ARE three allegations that amount to sexual assault and one (the fourth) amount to rape as they do in the UK, Sweden, the US and pretty much any civilized country in the world. Which one of these allegations do you believe does not amount to sexual assault/rape just as the UK court ruled they did? How is Sweden wrong in identifying these allegations as sexual assault/rape and wrong to pursue the accused individual to answer to them, and how is the UK wrong for agreeing that they are allegations of sexual assault/rape in Sweden just as they would be in the UK and rule that the accused individual should be sent back to Sweden to answer for them, and how is the US wrong to also agree that they are allegations of sexual assault/rape and that the accused individual should be sent from the UK back to Sweden to answer to them?

These allegations have been publicly known and posted here countless times for over two years, yet so many on the "pro-Assange" side STILL refuse to acknowledge them and STILL insist on pretending the only allegation is some nuttery about a broken condom. But I guess if one was to believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory concerning this case one would have to pretend the facts don't exist and make up their own.