Julian Assange Served With Extradition Notice By British Police 612
An anonymous reader writes "London's Metropolitan Police have delivered an 'Extradition Notice' to Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, who sought refuge and political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London last week. Scotland Yard have said in a brief statement that 'the notice requires Julian Assange to attend a police station of our choosing at a set time.' SY also said, 'This is standard procedure in extradition cases and is the first step in the removal process. He remains in breach of his bail conditions and failure to surrender would be a further breach of those conditions and he is liable to arrest.' However, under international diplomatic arrangements, the British Metropolitan Police cannot actually go into the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Mr Assange. Assange would have to leave the embassy to be lawfully arrested. This raises the following question of course: Is this the 'endgame' for Julian Assange as far as extradition is concerned? If the Ecuadorians fail to grant Assange political asylum, which is a possibility, will he be arrested by Metropolitan Police, and sent to Sweden to stand trial for two alleged counts of 'rape?' Will Sweden then hand Assange over to the United States, where many well known and quite senior politicians have publicly stated that they think 'Assange should be punished severely' for publishing confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on Wikileaks?"
Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scare quotes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are we using scare quotes for the word "rape"? Whether you believe the accusations, or whether you believe those accusations should count as rape, he would actually go on trial for two counts of rape... not for two counts of 'rape'.
he's screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
He has been screwed from day one, and nobody's going to help him because the United States is the thug nobody will stand up to. The message we've been sending post-9/11 has been consistently "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and if you get in our way, we'll squish you like a bug." We've created an entire extrajudicial system to punish anyone who disagrees with the current regime, setup internment camps for political prisoners, and we torture and kill civilians and foreign nationals after judging them in secret in the President's own Star Chamber.
Everything else is really pretext. The 'rape' charges, the media spin and control, the reveal that our government has an entire task force dedicated to psyops to discredit anyone who disagrees with our foreign or domestic policies... the government is out of control. We've become the terrorists we sought to destroy... and frankly... until someone punches America in the face so hard they flinch, nothing's going to change.
Although that said, our huge military investments while our infrastructure rots away and our middle class disintegrates is creating the exact same socioeconomic conditions that led to the sudden coup de etat and dissolution of the USSR. I would not be surprised if there is a civil uprising here in the next 10 years and the United States breaks up into several smaller countries. This may in fact have been the long-term strategy of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. -- we have such a big ego and need for total dominance that we'll literally spend ourselves into a hole we can't get out of trying to maintain that, rather than acknowledging that we lost a fight and you know, that's okay sometimes (like every other country has had to). If all it took to bring down the largest military and economic power on the planet was a few airplanes flown into the side of buildings and some sabre rattling from some country built out of dirt claiming they're going to make nuclear weapons... It'll be the most effective force multiplication ever seen in warfare. Ever.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully Assange finally goes to trial so we can stop reading about every last thing he does to escape the Swedish legal* system.
* Note the lack of quotes.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeking protection in Ecuador against the Swedish legal system!!! That's a laugh. Ecuador president Correa is the main competitor to his best friends Chavez and Castro in maintaining his power by constantly bashing the USA and blaming the West for all his country's problems, intimidating and imprisoning journalists who oppose him and implementing idiotic populist socialist policies. I suppose a natural ally for Assange.
Learn to write (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scare quotes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are we using scare quotes for the word "rape"?
Because the Swedish definition of rape is "if I wake up the next day and regret it, then it's rape", not the "he forced me to have sex" that everyone else uses.
Well first... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you don't agree with the laws of a nation, you should follow them. If you are not prepared to do so, then you should not visit the nation. The only exception to this is when you disobey the law in civil protest.
He stands accused of "rape", but the term itself varies from country to country and across translations. In this case, afaik, two women consented to protected sex with him under specific conditions. Those conditions changed and consent was withdrawn, yet he continued. Think about it for a minute. If the woman says "stop" and you don't, then it most certainly is a form of rape. Perhaps you have no respect for women and thus consider it ok to continue after that point, but most jurisdictions in the West do not. The labelling of the crime may differ, but this is generally not allowed so there is no reason to denigrate the Swedish legal system on account of this.
Assange's work with Wikileaks, despite sometimes being apparently motivated by his egomania, is overall for the greater good. Governments argue that airing their dirty laundry for all to see places people in danger and threatens the national interest. They need to be taught that they are responsible for perpetrating such actions in the first place. For that reason, I hope that Assange will not be extradited to the US where he will face an increasingly unfair political process.
Despite that, his work does note give him a carte blanche to do whatever he wants. The fact that you would dismiss all accusations against him without even hearing the evidence shows that you think some people should be above the law. That attitude threatens society as a whole. Double standards for people based on how much you like them personally is not acceptable in a legal context.
Maybe there is a conspiracy to get him extradited to the US through Sweden. Maybe there isn't. Maybe he just doesn't want to pay for what he did to those girls because he doesn't think it's a big deal and, like you, doesn't respect the laws of sovereign host nations. We'll probably never know because there are so many other factors involved. I understand that modern media have taught most of us to view things in black and white, but please try to understand that this situation is much more nuanced than that. Maybe it makes your brain hurt to consider all of the different aspects, but the least you can do is try before making ignorant posts with simplistic opinions.
Re:he's screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, 9-11 really brought the US "down". About two months later the Taliban were out of power in Afghanistan. Now OBL is shark bait, and Al Qaeda management positions are the least popular career move in the Muslim world.
And we've been in a recession pretty much every day since, the middle class is rapidly deteriorating into the working poor, the national debt is ballooning, and all those trillions that got sucked out of the economy to fund the war effort means our national infrastructure is going to pieces -- bridges are falling into rivers, half of New Orleans was wiped off the face of the planet and there's no money to repair it, there are mass water shortages across most of the southern part of the country, and the list goes on.
A real pyrric victory we got here. Woo. Go us.. number one... number one... number one in debt.
Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's not rape by any english language definition.
It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.
And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?
Quotes are appropriate.
Bullshit.
The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.
Stop giving cover to that kind of nonsense.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally I think this is nuts. If I were accused of this crime, I would just fly over to Sweden and go to trial. Mainly because there's no way for them to prove their case, which means I would be found "not guilty" and free to resume my travels around the world w/ a cleared name.
To keep fighting like this is just nuts & makes Julian look guilty. But if you crack-open some conspiracy theory about U.S. police wandering around Sweden looking for this man, my response will be "Alex Jones: Is that you? Take some prozac."
Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.
And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?
Even then, it needs to be under quotes. It denotes that this is the Swedish legal version of rape and not the regular definition of rape.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:1, Insightful)
Assange isn't accused of anything we'd call rape. Furthermore, in Sweden accusations of rape (even the real kind that we'd call rape too) usually aren't investigated because Swedish society doesn't care. Compared to cases that the police routinely drop because apparently drinking coffee is more important, Assange didn't do anything much. But the US put political pressure on the Swedish government, because they think the Sweden-US extradition treaty will make it possible to grab Assange and try him for things that he weren't illegal where he did them.
Re:Learn to write (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, these charges are complete bullshit, not "bullshit."
Re:Scare quotes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, sex with a broken condom that she thinks is intact and he knows isn't isn't rape . It may be reckless endangerment of a sort for both pregnancy and disease.
But it isn't rape, and calling it such does a disservice to actual rape victims.
Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Insightful)
The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.
As opposed to the facts surrounding the case causing people to doubt the verasity of the claims. You know, like the fact that the first prosecutor who handled the case dropped all charges for (and again, quotes are appropriate here), "lack of evidence." Like the fact that the "victims" were proud to have slept with Mr. Assange, with one attending a party in his honor after supposedly being raped by him. Nor the fact that both women consented and were able to give consent, and only decided after the fact, and after meeting with each other, to file charges.
None of that matters; it's the use of quotation marks around the word "rape" that will cause of us to doubt his guilt.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
"There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."
Where did you get the strange idea that he was charged because he told a girl she was pretty?
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
> That's a laugh.
And what do you think about the case against him by the Swedish "legal"* system? Isn't it hugely convenient? Can't stop its Robin Hood work? Well, it's ad hominem then...
* Note the presence of quotes.
The man is extremely useful to mankind. He's a kind of spy for the rest of us. It's obvious he's going to end up in Gitmo or worse. You have to see a lot of happy endings to believe he's returning to Sweden to choose one of the girls.
I don't even know how realistic is whatever kind of protection Assange would get in Ecuador. Presidents are not forever, as it seems the case of Paraguay. What I know is he's done a lot for mankind by revealing secrets from countries which should not keep embarrassing secrets, but instead should give an example to the world of Ethics.
Sweden deserves all the quotes written in all these posts. Their "rape" should be modulated by Assange's own definition of rape. Their "legal" system, if it ends up serving the interests of a foreign country (guess who?) really deserve to be quoted as a tool it is.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope Assange gets some fair treatment. But what I've seen is some kind of man hunt, because someone is very interested in vengeance for what he brought to light. Think for a minute, where are the others accused of rape being sent to Sweden? Don't tell me Assange is the only one who fooled Swedish girls and has been a two-timer.
There surely must be some other guys in the same situation... maybe one Irish, one Italian, one Spanish, perhaps a French one... what about a Chinese? And suppose there's a law in my country against eating pudding in public. Should one be extradited from say, Italy, which has no such laws? Because if so, then I shall start demanding other countries to deliver their citizens, based on the fact that eating pudding in public is a kind of rape in my country.
I had a much higher opinion about how evolved Sweden is. It seems I underestimated the prevalence of stupidity.
Assange, well, pal, there's not much one can say in such surreal situation -- except maybe "Good luck". If you were an agent of any country, you most certainly would have a new identity by now. But you chose to serve Truth. That's unacceptable, you know. I hope you can be safe and sound and live in peace with a girl that won't prosecute you for liking her.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
He's being charged in Sweden, not in the US, and he is almost certainly not going to face US charges. As much as officials want to bluster, charging him with something related to the leaks would implicate a bunch of major newspapers in the US and the UK. So they won't do it, and the charges wouldn't stick anyways.
Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I invite you to my house, and you come over and party and we have a great time and you go home afterwards, then later I find out that you were hanging out at the house of some dude I really hate, I can't suddenly claim you were trespassing.
Re:Assange should shut up and go to Sweden (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence!
See here: [justice4assange.com]
On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied.
and here: [justice4assange.com]
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
> The man is extremely useful to mankind.
Not any more, Wikileaks has been shown to be a quite amateurish organization, so its doubtful leakers will be emailing Assange in the future, and he's burned all his bridges with journalists. It's also quite obvious (to the non-wingnuts), he's going to spend a couple years in a comfy humane Swedish jail while the MSM & halfwit politicians forget all about him.
It is rape as the girl declared it (Score:2, Insightful)
The case was finally dropped simply because the girl dismissed the charge for unspecified reason and then disappeared. This young activist has never been so active ever since.
So no matter how you argue on insufficient evidence or legal fallacy, it is rape as long as the girl testified it is. Assange chose to flee from the prosecution because he knows better, he knows every well what would be the result if he chose to face the trial.
Re:Strange move by Assange (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether ensconced in the Ecuador Embassy or in jail in the US he is an object lesson to those who would follow in his footsteps.
And that, my friends, is the whole point of the exercise.
Re:Scare quotes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't there something about him having sex with her while she was asleep? That isn't exactly consensual.
I know this is Slashdot and all, but even if you have no experience in the subject, at least consider the physics and biology involved.
Without drugs, staying asleep during sex just doesn't happen. Early morning drowsy sex often does happen (my partner calls it "waking her nicely", and between couples who've already established a sexual relationship, doesn't normally involve stopping to ask explicit permission.
If consent was withdrawn when she woke, then Assange should have done the same, but that's not what's being said in the accusations.
I support every woman's right to say "no" to sex at any time, and in normal circumstances I'd side with the Swedish girls involved. In this instance, the stories seem to be very carefully crafted to skirt the divide between outright prosecutable acts and legally consented sex. Crafted well enough in fact, to justify prosecution, while avoiding accusations of perjury.
I could be wrong, but that suggests to me that the women making the accusations might have been primed by legally-experienced third parties.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia may bend over for the US, but not in this case, for two good reasons:
1. The extradition treaty between Australia and the US would not allow Assange to be extradited in these circumstances (and while the government may do whatever the US tells them to do, the High Court is unlikely to, and make no mistake, that is where this will end up)
2. The political backlash domestically would be considerable. Extraditing an Australian citizen to the US for something that isn't a crime under Australian law and that didn't actually occur in the US? Would be pretty easy to kick up a massive media fuss about that I think.
Illogical all around (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time if Sweden wants to just interview him why not send a couple of officers over to the UK, talk to him and if he is not convincing then extradite him to face charges? However this I can put down to incompetence/bureaucratic stupidity. The US concerns I think are just Assange's over active imagination. I'm sure the US wants to get him but they could do that far more easily in the UK than Sweden.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
Could be a conspiracy theory, could be unlikely, but would you bet your life on it?
That's what Assange would be doing. Very easy to say "just go and clear your name and that will be the end of it". Not nearly so easy if it's your life on the line.
I'd rather have some people thinking I look guilty fighting extradition, than get to Sweden and immediately be placed on a flight to the USA (or worse). It's not like there is a way out of it by that stage.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Totally unrelated to Assange here, but:
Some of you need to talk to some women about how they would feel if a guy did that to them. Your idea of what constitutes rape is outdated if you feel it must be a violent attack where a man forces himself inside a woman. The thing that makes it rape is the violation, not the thing used to violate.
Re:His work? (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems to be the kettle with plenty dirty laundry airing the pot's dirty laundry.
I certainly hope you don't expect your world 'heros' to be squeaky clean - if you do then all I can say is that you're more brainwashed than you might think.
His work? What do you mean? What change has happened as a result of his work?
Here your ignorance and short-sightedness is exposed for all who can see to see. As a product of your own society and upbrining, you expect fantastical, magical results from the small flash of time that Wikileaks had. You expect big, outwardly visible changes. How blissfully ignorant you are.
You should very well know that our society is wrapped in cotton wool, that we are 'guided' as to what we should think, what should be considered socially acceptable and that we are given little room to think badly of our governments. Dislike them? Oh, yes. Do anything about it? Absolutely not!
Do you know what? For the first time in decades, an independent organisation awoke people everywhere to the often horrific actions taken by our governments (on our behalf, remember). For just but a second, peoples eyes were torn from their soap operas and hypno-toad shows and injected with a sudden sense of reality. People were outraged! People sided with the philosophical viewpoint of Wikileaks, that our governments that act on our behalf should be transparent - that corruption and lies should be exposed.
Within a few months though, Wikileaks was hamstrung by the full force of entire governments bending every extent of their control to their needs, its flawed public figure was effectively smeared and demonised and the public that was once behind the organisation was coaxed and cajoled into accepting the goverments view on the issue.
Now? "Wikiwhat, sorry? Oh, that thing - isn't that dude a rapist?"
I pity the organisation and I pity the man. Mark my words in stone young sheep, 20 years from now history will look back on this organisation and man and recognise flawed heros before their time. That is if history remembers it.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect pretty much every victim of real rape on the planet would feel rather insulted at the suggestion that the term should cover a much wider range of offenses. If the charges are legitimate it sounds like Assange is guilty of being an ass, and depending on the particulars possibly of assault and/or sexual harassment. Calling it rape though is rather akin to getting charged with murder for getting into a brawl where no one was seriously injured.
Sometimes things happen and people get offended, frightened, even hurt. That's life, it's not all seetness and light, shit happens. You dust yourself off and move on. It may well be desirable to discourage people from inflicting such discomfort on others, but lumping such acts together with those that cause lasting damage doesn't help anything.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you've missed the point the GP was making.
I believe their point was that Julian Assange had full penetrative sex with these women. But there is no charge of full penetrative rape being levelled against him; he is being charged with "molesting by holding his erect penis up against her". So the question is- if the actual sex wasn't criminal, how can the foreplay be? Or if the sex was consensual, are we sure the foreplay wasn't (and would the distinction have been clear to the accused)?
It'd be like storming into someone's house with a gun, beating them up, and stealing all their money; and the crime that gets levelled against you is "wearing a face mask in a public place". It doesn't make sense that a lesser crime is being accused, but not the more obvious serious crime.
Re:Illogical all around (Score:4, Insightful)
Britain didn't bend over backwards. They complied with the EU extradition treaty.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
I thought that at first, but now I'm not so sure. As others have said, there's a very one-sided extradition treaty in place between the UK and the US; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US could have had him sent directly to them.
But... even if the US were to get hold of Assange, there's a good chance they'd have a hard time proving he did anything wrong. And regardless of the outcome of any court case, the US can't possibly come out of it looking good.
If Assange is found guilty - a man who has demonstrated an amazing ability to garner publicity has just become a political prisoner in a supposedly first-world country. If he dies in prison, he's a political martyr.
If he's found not guilty, a situation that's already embarrassing becomes considerably more embarrassing. Not only can the US not keep secret documents secret, they can't do much about it if those secrets leak.
Better, then, not to extradite him to the US at all. But how to deal with all these embarrassing documents - and ensure that any future leaks in don't wind up with a similar result? Arranging for Assange to mysteriously commit suicide may satisfy a human need for vengeance, but risks making Wikileaks look like a credible source for future leaks and ensures that quite a few investigative journalists will start to do some serious digging through the leaked documents (which are mostly pretty boring, benign bureaucratic stuff).
So, what to do? Well, Assange has become the human face of Wikileaks. Discredit the human face, and with any luck the organisation will suffer with it. And the best bit from the US perspective is that Assange is playing right into their hands. Assange's reaction to these allegations has been:
- To remain associated with Wikileaks rather than publicly resign and pass the reigns over to someone else.
- To move hell and high water to avoid extradition to Sweden.
The US doesn't need to do anything more. If Assange's request for political asylum is granted, he's a man on the run from rape charges - his credibility (and by extension that of Wikileaks) is shot to hell. If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he'll doubtless be charged. Whatever happens after that point, his credibility is equally shot to hell.
Re:Illogical all around (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweden can't just change it's codified laws and procedures just because some guy is paranoid. Maybe it's not the way the UK and US do things but it is their legal system. Now if this was some dictatorship on the human rights watch list with the non-English legal system then you might have a point. However this is a member of the EU and which has treaties with the UK.
Every single time one of these stories comes up people keep pointing out how Swedish law is not like English law. Stop being so parochial and xenophobic.
Re:he's screwed (Score:4, Insightful)
Two actually, and you turned up late both times.
I suspect you'll be a bit more punctual with number three.
Re:Illogical all around (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because you know more about British law than UK judges.
Lets correct some errors here that are running amok on Slashdot every time this comes up.
1) The Swedish legal system cannot file charges in absentia [fairtrials.net]. They *have* to bring him to Sweden, question him again in person (whether or not they think any more information will come of it), and only *then* can they legally file charges against him.
2) The Prime Minister of Sweden has stated explicitly that in accordinace with European extradition law the UK would have to approve any further extradition request, so yes, it's an extremely strained argument to suggest that the UK, who extradites people to the US at the drop of a hat, is a safer place to be than Sweden.
3) The lower British court found (and higher court upheld) that not only is there probable reason to suspect that Assange broke Swedish law, but that the same acts would be criminal in the UK as well. It's not "rape" (with sarcastic quotation marks), as in the Slashdot summary. It's rape, no quotation marks.
4) Assange is not being charged with "sex without a condom", and anyone who repeats that lie is deliberately trying to distort the situation. Here's the actual accusations [guardian.co.uk]:
Re:Illogical all around (Score:4, Insightful)
"Some reason" is that a suspect has to be in Swedish custody to have charges filed against them, by Swedish law. There are limited exceptions, but they don't apply in this case.
Assange's attorneys are doing their darndest to try to make this into some giant international conspiracy, but this is the way the extradition process works. He'll go to Sweden (and yes, he will eventually; even if Ecuador approves his asylum bid, he has no means to get from the Ecuadorian embassy to the country, so he'd be facing life inside an embassy building in the UK as his alternative, which probably isn't all that much better than a Swedish prison - can't even get proper healthcare or other basic needs there). He'll be taken in for questioning. He'll remain in jail (Sweden isn't as big on bail, and Assange has clearly shown that he's a flight risk) until the trial. He'll go to trial. Odds are, given the evidence against him and that the two courts reviewing it have already found it credible, he'll be convicted. His sentence will be up to four years. He'll then walk.
Re:Illogical all around (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for the minor hitch that due to European extradition law, as confirmed by the Swedish prime minister, the UK would have to approve any re-transfer to the US. So it gains the US nothing.
Having read aboutthe charges and Assange's answers (Score:3, Insightful)
...for instance here [guardian.co.uk], I've come to the conclusion that Assange is not a nice person. But whether he is a rapist or just an ass is not yet known. So what on earth should society do in such cases?
Oh, I have this radical new idea; lets have a meeting where one side presents a case in favour of him being a rapist and the other side presents a case against it. We can call this a trial, and it should occur in the same area where the alleged incidence occurred. Assange has up until now tried all manner of ways to avoid this type of meeting, but several levels of English judges have ALL declared that he cannot avoid it any longer.
Sweden is not some banana republic with a dodgy legal system and mass corruption. It is a well-formed and reasonably well functioning system, comparing favourably to most. It is considered one of the least corrupt [guardian.co.uk] countries in the world.
Sweden does, however, tend to have quite strict women's rights and sexual abuse laws. In general the idea is that all parts of a sexual encounter should be consensual (not just whether to do it or not, but also how to do it, i.e. if a woman agreed to sex but not S&M, if you force her down and whip her while doing it, this is most likely rape), force isn't necessary to make an encounter illegal (just making it seem hard to get out of it, or simply ignoring pleas not to, is enough), and a woman's continued interaction with the man afterwards isn't seen as definite proof that the encounter was consensual. For instance, if you're in a position of power, and/or the woman's career or other ambitions depended on her continued interaction with you, or the woman may just feel threatened or blame herself afterwards. It is quite common for victims of abuse to assume it was their own fault, and it is very common for victims of abuse to keep seeing their abuser.
So far, Assange has resisted attempts at deciding his guilt or innocence, based on an argument that was very self-serving, and unlikely to be correct, and UK judges have called him on it. Now let him have his day in court in Sweden.