>And by the original prosecutor no less!

So what? An EAW for rape was eventually issued. This is a total red herring.

>It states extremely clearly that ...

It doesn't say any of that. I think you must be citing the wrong section. (Or if not, it would be helpful if you'd quote the part which you think says any of this.) This is all somewhat irrelevant anyway, since even if the Swedes could question Assange while he was in the UK, it does not follow that they are obliged to do so. If they would rather question him in Sweden, and if they can legally obtain an EAW, they are perfectly within their rights to take this course of action. If I were a suspect in a crime, I would not expect to be able to dictate to the police the time, location and circumstances of my questioning.

>Again, you are factually wrong.

You said in your previous post that "there was no examination of whether the description seemed reasonable". This is clearly not the case, as you can see by looking at the material under "Issue 2" in the High Court judgment. Assange's lawyer claimed that certain material in the prosecution file showed that the description in the EAW was not "fair and accurate". The court examined this material and concluded that the additional material did not in fact reveal any lack of fairness or accuracy. (They also pointed out that it would not in any case be proper for them to base their decision on conclusions derived from this material. That is a technical legal issue, so I really don't know if they made the legally correct decision. However, it is largely irrelevant, since they saw nothing in the additional material which would have influenced their judgment.)

> There was no or only an extremely limited ability for Assange to face his accusers, challenge the evidence, or request supporting evidence from the Swedish prosecution.

None of that would make any sense in the context of an extradition hearing. Those are all things that are properly to be done in the Swedish courts. It's not the business of the English courts to second-guess the results of an eventual trial in Sweden or to attempt to decide the facts of the case. The facts of the case are to be decided in Sweden where the charges were made. This is all, needless to say, clearly explained in the High Court decision.

>And yet you somehow managed to conclude that (1) there is evidence supporting any of these claims, and (2) Assange would be convicted of rape on the strength of that evidence.

I didn't say (2) or anything close to it. You are playing very fast and loose with what I write.

>So let me close by saying that you should be ashamed of having defended such an irregular abuse of the legal system, and doubly-so for now arguing with a straight face that anything legal is by definition moral. As Nietzshe would have commented, the problem with this approach is that it makes a mockery of law itself.

You're clearly very angry with me for some reason and I think it's leading to a lack of care in what you're writing here. Of course I have not argued that anything legal is moral. Rather, I've argued that it is morally right that Assange should face the charges against him. The claim that this is an irregular abuse of the legal system is a bit far-fetched when you consider all of the failed appeals. Most of your arguments against extradition were not actually made by Assange's lawyer (most likely because they have no actual legal merit). The arguments that were put forward by Assange's lawyer are quite obviously rather tenuous -- and somewhat tasteless in their trivialization of non-consensual sex -- and it does not take a conspiracy theory to explain why they were rejected by the English courts.