Well, like I said, I'm curious about the case. The BBC also writes that the morning sex charges state the woman had been asleep, which I hadn't read before (frankly, there are way too many pages regarding both the case details and what Swedish law says, and they don't all agree on either).

If they have sex only with a condom the night before... and then he wakes her up via sex without a condom the next day... well that's just rape no matter where you are. (well, in the western world.)

You are literally starting sex with someone while unconsious and unable to consent... and the fact that they demanded you wear a condom the night before basically tells you all you need to know about whether they'd consent the next day without a condom.

Who knows if that's what the allegations are or if the BBC is just reporting it that way because that's what they think they are though. 

Most of the reports though are written from what his ex defense lawyer said because the Swedish prosecutors can only confirm or deny information and not offer anything new.

As for Swedish rape laws...

'A person who, by violence or threat involving or appearing to the threatened person as imminent danger, forces the latter to have sexual intercourse or to engage in a comparable sexual act, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years. Rendering the person unconscious or otherwise placing the person in a similarly helpless state shall be regarded as equivalent to violence.

If in view of the nature of the violence or the threat and the circumstances in other respects the offence is considered less serious, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed.

If the offence is grave, a sentence to imprisonment for at least four and at most ten years shall be imposed for aggravated rape. In judging whether the offence is grave, special consideration shall be given to whether the violence involved a danger to life or whether the person who had committed the act had inflicted serious injury or serious illness or, having regard to the method used or the victim’s youth or otherwise, exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality.'

http://www.interpol.int/public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaSweden.asp

Also...

http://www.hannafriden.com/politik-samhalle/sweden-does-not-have-a-broader-definition-of-rape-assanges-charges-would-probably-have-been-the-same-in-the-us/

I do think it's a set-up... I'm just sayin' that it might not have been the CIA specifically.

This is just stupid. 4chan is alot of things, smart is not one of them. It sounds more like a group of bored hackers with absolutely no actual knowledge or education of the situation acting out because it's something to do and they were bored and they like wikileaks. Anonymous is attacking other groups rights to try to protest against an imagined slight against wikileaks rights and conspiracy theories of it's public face undergoing martydom for being charged with rape. It's just facepalmingly ignorant.

And to those saying he's being set up. Do you have even a shred of evidence for this whatsoever? Or does it just sound good if you say it real fast and then stop thinking about it immediately afterwards? For reasons kasz has already elaborated on, it is a dumbfoundingly stupid hypothesis that this is a government conspiracy, and there isn't a shred of evidence suggesting it's a set up of any kind.

This is all just another case of the internet needing to grow the fuck up.

So who would bother to set him up for a crime that has an 8% conviction rate?

I mean, you can't think it was the women's plan by themselves.  Do you know what kind of hell rape victims who take people to court go through?  It basically becomes "hey lets go over every person you've slept with since you were 16 . and dig up anything else that might make you look like shit."  While getting all kinds of harrasing calls and hate mail. 

Plus, at least one of the women is a well known (in sweden) left wing feminist... why in the world would she set up the leader of an orginzation she supports and for what gain?  

The Swedish government setting him up?  When they have a 92% chance of screwing it up, and then an 8% chance of a lot of people thinking it was a conspiracy.

I'm just not seeing who gains from setting him up.  What end game supports anyone BUT wikileaks.

The most likely conspiracy theory I could see... which still would be RIDICULIOUSLY unlikely woud be that the other main founder of Wikileaks, I'm forgetting her name right now... the lady who called him a misognist, set him up with their help, so Wikileaks would gain even more credibility while pushing him out of the way so she could be the main "head".

And that just sounds too much like a later year episode of Law and Order SVU when they decided every case needed like 15 twists.

Nope.  Just like you don't have evidence that he wasn't. How would any of us have any of that anyways to confirm either stance anyways.

It looks sketchy to me.  The timing is too convenient and motive is definitely there. 

I wouldn't be so pissed that many people think this is a set-up though.

If anything, they don't seem to want him convicted - just his credibility ruined I would think if Kasz's conviction rate is accurate (not that a conviction couldn't be manipulated and guaranteed anyways).

Actually from what I understand Sweden has a pretty narrow definition of rape and a whole lot of other similar crimes to make up for it. Because it appears that he's not being charged with rape now, but with this "sex by surprise" instead, which is probably a ridiculous translation of something along the lines of sexual misconduct and way below rape. With just a fine of about 700 USD if found guilty.

How is his credibility ruined when practically everybody in this thread thinks it's a giant setup?

Or the fact that in general, people always believe the accused rapist.

You'd be more likely to ruin his reputation by releasing a story that he's a bad tipper at restruants.

Also, seriously... how do you prove that a conspiracy DOESN'T exist?

No.  He's being charged with rape.

The "sex by surprise" comment was just a comment made by his laywer and obviously not true and just usual lawyer tactics.

A fine of 700 USD is not enough to extradite per EU law.  No warrant could of been filed for his arrest if that was it  There needs to at least be a penalty of 2 years before you can extradite.

He's accused of 2 counts of sexual misconduct, 2 counts of molestation and 1 count of rape... as per the warrant for his arrest.

What was reported by the BBC about him having unprotected sex with a woman while she was asleep is from the warrant.  This was after they previously had sex the night before in which she insisted he use a condom.