Right. As I recall, a lot of the prior discussion revolved around the rape charges. One side argued that Assange was hiding from a rape charge and the other arguing that the rape charge was a cover for a secret extradition agreement between Sweden and the US. That latter stance has yet to be proven.
I don't think that there were many people arguing that the US didn't want him but it looks like the US was willing to wait for him to wear out his welcome with the Ecuadorans and completely skip over the Swedes. I wonder had he never gotten to the Ecuadorean embassy if the US would have raised a competing claim with Sweden.
> One side argued that Assange was hiding from a rape charge and the other arguing that the rape charge was a cover for a secret extradition agreement between Sweden and the US.
One side was arguing he was hiding from a rape charge, the other side argued he was hiding from a possible extradition order. Both of those have to do with Assange's likely motivation and are to some degree independent of the facts on the ground - as you point out, the facts of one argument are so far unprovable.
The hiding-from-rape argument has been pretty much debunked by the 7 year timeframe. I don't know what Assange was up for in Sweden, but it beggars belief that he would get more than 7 years jail for a non-violent crime. A fine and community service, maybe. Most aspects of the case must be almost evidence-free and would be a struggle to prove if he says 'didn't happen that way'.
Whatever the truth, he was clearly hiding from a greater threat than the charges the Swedes were bringing against him.
"The hiding-from-rape argument has been pretty much debunked by the 7 year timeframe. I don't know what Assange was up for in Sweden, but it beggars belief that he would get more than 7 years jail for a non-violent crime. A fine and community service, maybe. Most aspects of the case must be almost evidence-free and would be a struggle to prove if he says 'didn't happen that way'."
Isn't rape usually considered a violent crime by default? Apparently rape is between 4 and 10 years in prison in Sweden so it could certainly have been more than 7 if the Swedes decided to throw the book at him. Having made them wait, they might have been more willing to do so.
But think that even if it was certainly less than that Assange's actions don't disprove the accusation. The embassy was arguably more comfortable than prison and effectively allowed him to continue his political activity (despite the Ecuadorans request that he not do so,) and more importantly, there's a bit of a sunk cost impulse: he probably didn't enter the embassy with the expectation of staying for 7 years.
> Isn't rape usually considered a violent crime by default?
The answer to that question is a bit complex and involve a bit of language barrier and differences in the way the law is organized.
Rape is not a specific crime, but a heading in the legal text and a category. As such you have "lesser rape" being defined by one set of circumstances, "rape" with other circumstances, and "serious rape" for a third set of circumstances.
Initiating sex with someone who is sleeping belongs to the first set of circumstances, i.e. lesser rape, and hold a maximum punishment of 4 years and minimum of 6 months.
As for the expected punishment in the Assange case we can look at a predicate where a accused inserted a finger while a woman was sleeping after a party and stopped when she woke up. The punishment was 10 months.
I don't think that there were many people arguing that the US didn't want him but it looks like the US was willing to wait for him to wear out his welcome with the Ecuadorans and completely skip over the Swedes. I wonder had he never gotten to the Ecuadorean embassy if the US would have raised a competing claim with Sweden.