Why?  If anything you'd think he'd WANT to get deported.  As was said, there is literally nothing they can charge him with...

If the US deports him it's just a victory for him that proves the point he's trying to make.

Also, his laywer may have spoken too soon about "them admitting there was no rape".

The new arrest warrant very clearly states "rape" as one of the charges.

But seriously... lets get back on topic unless you actually have somehing new to say... the whole circle debating game where someone says something, I point out the problem with it, and there respone is to continue into a loop where they ignore the comment is gtting old.

The Jet fighting leak is some intersting gamesmanship.  Which is espiecally intersting considering the US complainging about how Europe was artificially boosting up their airlines.

It's not surprising... but it's unknown and something actually worth leaking.

People are ignoring the fact that I think things should be leaked... I just think things like "I the ambassador think sarkozy is an over arrogant douche who has no real power" is something that shouldn't be leaked, because it's at best pointless and at worst, is just harmful to international politics.

I mean what, an ambassador can't give a fair impression about someone?

@Kasz216:

For example, if you pretend to be your twin brother and sleep with his wife and she finds out later... legally in a lot of places "she consented."

You're using a tactic (who's name I can't remember) where your comparing the situation at hand with a totally different, yet terrible situation, in order to make it seem like the situation at hand is terrible. Sorry, it will not work on me. These situations have absolutely nothing in common.

Did you ever think, maybe she believed "the condom broke" story until she met the second woman and she mentioned about how he lied about having sex with a condom?  (You know, like if you believe a guy who asks for change that he needs 2 bucks for a bus, until you talk to a couple other people who say the same guy got 2 bucks from both of them?)

Question: Why would he break the condom? Can you see any logical reason why he would do that? He wouldn't feel any pleasure from having sex while wearing a broken condom? Where's the logic behind that?

Then they confronted him, asked him to take an STD test and he refused?

Why should he have to take an STD test?

Also, why would a femnist.  Keep in mind... feminists are liberals want to get the Wikileaks guy in trouble?

Radical feminists hate men, and one of these women had a site with advice on how to get revenge on your boyfriend. They probably met, realised that this is a promiscuous guy who has sexi wth lots of women, and as the radical feminists that they are they decided to teach him a lesson.

"I think you should rethink your view about whether removing a condom without partner consent should constitute a valid form of "statutory rape" or is merely the behavior of a cad.

He didn't decieve anyone. In the first case the condom broke (and only a paranoid idiot would think he broke it on purpose), and in the second case they had morning sex, and both the guy AND the woman forgot about the condom. In neither case did he take the condom off in the middle of the sex act, as you keep saying.

@Kasz216:

It's not radical feminism.  It's common sense.

You have no commond sense whatsoever.

If someone says "I want to have sex, but only if you use a condom" and you don't use a condom or intentionall break a condom for more pleasure you are commiting rape.

You are specifically committing an act that not only was not consented too... you were specifically told was out of bounds.

Proof that he broke the condom? And in the second case he wore a condom when she asked him to. He didn't wear one the next morning when not only did he probably forget about it, but the woman forgot to remind him or check if he was wearing one in the first place.

The fact that a conviently lucky broken condom, was followed 3 days later by the non-use of a condom even when it was told that was needed is definitly a pattern that involved looking into.

No it's not. You're more deluded than those conspiracy theorists.

Furthermore he was fine with standing trial, but has suddenly changed his mind... because maybe he realizes he's actually guilty?

Maybe because under the Swedesh legal system the woman need no actual evidence other than they're testimony in order to get him convicted?

Except for the fact that it's the exact same situation.  Rape by deception.

Also, radical femnists don't hate men.  You sound like Rush Limbuagh.

Why not?  Seriously.   You are forcing someone to have sex against their will via deception.

What else would you call that?

Seriously, which of these very simple and logical points do you not understand?

1) Sex without consent = rape.   

2) Saying you will only have sex with a condom = Consenting to have sex, only with a condom.  True or False?

3) Not wearing a condom while saying you were going to, or intentionally damaging it = Not having sex the way that was consented via your actions.

4)   Sex withotu consent = Rape.

Who decieved those women? The condom breaking isn't deception, and in the second case BOTH THE GUY AND THE WOMAN FORGOT ABOUT THE CONDOM!

Er... no they didn't? 

You do realize it's not a crime to have sex without a condom in Sweden right? 

I mean, you do realize... they want people to have kids in Sweden.

You don't even realize the laws he broke do you?  (Or rather was accused of breaking)

Although you know as proof

The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange "did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use."

Those women were not forced against their will to have sex with anyone. They consented, and even the prosecuttors admitted taht they're clients consented to having sex with him.

In one case the condom broke (this happens sometimes, and only a paranoid person would think he broke it on purpose).

On the other case the woman asked he wear a condom, and he did, The following morning they woke up, and had a little morning sex. BOTH THE MAN AND THE WOMAN FORGOT ABOUT THE CONDOM.

I see no rape having taken place.

Sorry, I can't continue this conversation. You are the most deluded irrational person I've met in my life (or at least with whom I talked to today). It's tiring having to reapeat myself over and over while you refuse to listen, keep making stuff up and using faulty comparisons.

As I said previously, may you meet and hook up with many women like these two throughtout your life. Goodbye sir!

Except... the prosecutors didn't admit that... at all.  That was Laywer PR spin. 

You are taking your full basis of information from HIS LAYWERS STORY and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

You keep repeating everything i've disproven... and close your ears to basic logical truths.

The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange "did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use."

I'm not the delusional one here... one day you'll realize it.

The fact that you could find now flaw in the above 4 point statement proves it.