Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'

[Dems to Win]

185. Strong case, weak case, doesn't matter. Assange has imprisoned himself.

I still can't understand why Assange and his supporters are so certain that extradition to Sweden leads automatically to extradition to the U.S., when Assange could have been extradited to the U.S. directly from UK instead during the last couple of years. I've read the links politely provided to me by navarth in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014228271 and remain unconvinced. There's nothing one can say about Sweden's willingness to extradite and cooperate with the U.S. that cannot also be said of the UK.

Some people seem to think that Sweden has been unreasonable, therefore the only explanation is that Sweden wants to get their hands on Assange to send him to the U.S.

My humble theory:

The Swedish demand for Assange's arrest and extradition to Sweden is a standalone 'honey trap', no need to infer that Assange will thereby end up in a cell next to Bradley Manning or at Gitmo.

Sweden cannot give a guarantee they will not extradite Assange (or anyone) to the U.S., because if a demand for extradition for anyone comes in while that person is on Swedish soil, Sweden is obligated to follow its extradition treaties and consider the request in their court system. Assange is asking to be treated as an oh-so-special snowflake and requesting Sweden guarantee they won't extradite him to the U.S., no matter what request might come in at any point. No Swedish official even has the authority to make such a commitment. Therefore, the failure of Sweden to make this guarantee means nothing to me.

Sweden will not accommodate Assange in any way, by questioning him in London, for example, because Assange has been openly defiant of the MIC and Swedish law enforcement. Open defiance is met with hard-ass, by-the-book prosecution by the authorities, always and everywhere. A top Swedish official tweeted to the effect that 'suspects don't get to set the terms of questioning'. I think that a decision was made (afer the matter had initially been dropped by the local prosecutor) at the highest political / prosecutorial level in Sweden to push this sexual assault case to the maximum letter of the law, to distract and harass Assange and hopefully immobilize Wikileaks.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that this case is a smokescreen for snagging Assange and throwing him in a cell next to Manning. If that was the intent of the U.S., he would already be there. Assange could have been extradited from the UK -- he could have been told to report to a police station, informed there was a US warrant for his arrest, and taken immediately into custody and put before a magistrate who could have increased or revoked his bail on the spot, keeping Assange in custody until they delivered him to the U.S. I sincerely believe that the UK/US relationship is so very close that it would have happened, if the U.S. thought it could come up with a valid indictment and wanted to do it. If the U.S. has such a plan for Assange once he gets to Sweden, I just don't see the reason why they wouldn't have already implemented it in the UK.

It is my guess (remember this is all my humble opinion ) that if Assange had returned to Sweden, the case would have been dropped/ Assange would have been acquitted, after the prosecution had pushed it absolutely as far as it could, for maximum harassment value. Maybe they would have gotten lucky and gotten a conviction that would result in some probation, most likely not. But at least they'd tie him in knots and cost him some money for a while.

But, that's not what has happened. Assange has imprisoned himself in a tiny room in London, where the police can monitor who visits him, probably can listen to his conversations using directional microphones, and can monitor all electronic communication in and out. And this situation might continue for many years.

Wikileaks is struggling to function, starved of funds and effective leadership. I'm thinking that the powers that be are chuckling at this result, thinking that the flawed, weak case 'honey trap' that fell into their laps (because I think the women honestly wanted assistance from the authorities in getting Assange tested for STDs, not that they were complicit in setting the trap) has paid off better than their wildest dreams.