Wikileaks: What's With Sweden?

Julian Assange is in court today to hear whether he will be allowed to post $315,000 bail -- money that his lawyer says has already been "secured" -- and possibly walk free.

[...]

Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who is at the center of controversry over posting U.S. secret documents online, had been held in a London prison on sexual assault charges including rape originating out of Sweden. Tuesday a judge granted him $315,000 bond, but Swedish prosecutors appealed the decision.

[...]

Assange has been held in solitary confinement -- for his own protection, the jail said. His lawyers said he is being held in a wing normally reserved for convicted criminals, cut off from other prisoners and is only allowed a half hour a day outside the cell.

[...]

Outspoken critics of the document drop, including President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said they believe the formerly classified material is more than just embarrassing for the slights against foreign leaders, but potentially disastrous for U.S. strategy abroad.

  ABC

Indeed, that’s true - they might make it harder for us to carry out our strategy of imperialism.

“Formerly classified.” This stuff isn’t even classified??

[...]

So Julian Assange is in jail in England waiting to be extradicted to Sweden for having sex without a condom (an act Sweden apparently equates to rape – and it was brought by a woman who had had sex with him on a previous occasion to the one she’s claiming was criminal, presumably with a condom – and you might also read the reply to that article I’ve linked, in which you'll find that "without a condom" in this case means the condom broke), and Sweden has appealed his release, trying to deny him bail. Aside from the obvious fact that no newspaper reporters or editors who actually published the documents that Wikileaks released to them are in jail, what I want to know is, what’s with Sweden? What do we have on Sweden that makes that government go to such lengths? Or is it that we are paying them a generous fee for services? Us or the Brits? That’s the story I want.

P.S. I have to add that the reply to the article says the woman did not agree to have sex after the condom broke, which leaves the question: If a condom breaks, do you know it at that precise moment? Can you say the "agreement" about whether to have sex can be made then? I'd think any man would be guilty of rape any time a condom failed during the act if it can be designated rape after you find out, which is going to be at some point after sex has been occurring. This whole thing would be ludicrous if it weren't for the fact that Assange is being persecuted and they are setting a(nother) precedent for tyranny.

UPDATE:

Turns out it's not Sweden at all.