While it's probably good to read a contrarian
opinion about Assange's arrest, surely Ms Dalton
can do better than

"And maybe there is an element of vindictiveness at work here.
Maybe a couple of ex-girlfriends have decided to punish him,
or a government is looking to discredit him. If that’s the case,
then the best possible course of action is to front the court with
those lawyers and challenge them to prove the allegations."

Just a tad Pollyanna-ish, I think. However, this
is truly a fascinating story that gets better every
day. As I've said before, I can't wait for the movie.
Pity George Clooney's a bit old for the lead.

Thanks for this piece. I'm not clear on what the charges are but had been having similar thoughts on the reaction to this. I'm more clearly in favor of the work Wiki-leaks is doing than the author is but I think that the fallout should not be Assange being shielded from the charges, rather a heightened monitoring of how the case is handled.

There are risks for Assange that this may possibly be a big setup but it's also possible that he has done the wrong thing in regards to sexual conduct with one or more women. Popularity should not be a shield against the processes that others similarly charged would face.

Wiki-leaks does when it publishes material run the risk that others may be harmed by tyrants as a result of being identifiable in that material. It's easier to support that risk when you are unlikely to be in the line of fire but ultimately we each make a choice about the consequences of collateral damage vs wrongdoing behind the scene's.

I'd not like to see Wiki-leaks starting to filter the material (leaving out what they think we don't need to know), that process could easily be subverted, we found out Clinton and Rice had both engaged in similar tactics, what if we had only been told about one of them?

R0bert

I agree that it's unhelpful to demonise his accusers. The accusations themselves may be true, we simply do not know. We don't even really know what the accusations are.

It is reasonable however to question the actions of the authorities. The issuing of an Interpol red notice before any actual charges are laid. The denial of bail to someone who had surrendered voluntarily, when according to a letter to the Guardian by Women Against Rape, bail is routinely given to violent men with a history of murdering their previous rape victims. The refusal to allow Assange to be interviewed by video link, at Scotland Yard or at the Swedish embassy as his lawyers had offered.

And it is not reasonable to dismiss the fears of his supporters as absurd conspiracy theories. Sweden really, truly, has allowed the CIA to use their territory as a base for extraordinary rendition. They really, actually, truly have allowed people to be taken off the streets of their capital by US agents, and be flown naked, bound and with objects in their anuses, to secret CIA prisons for gruesome torture. This has been acknowledged to have happened by the Swedish government. And they have apologised to some of the demonstrably innocent survivors, but they have reserved the right to do it again.

There is a bill before the US legislature right now that would expand the definition of espionage to include what WikiLeaks is doing, with a death penalty attached.

And even without the colour of law, US operatives have killed people, recently, for less. This is not fantasy, however much we might like it to be.

pro science - "The fact that you have people like Tom Flanagan, Sarah Palin, a whole host of FOX network commentators calling for him to be killed, gives many people a reason to believe in a conspiracy."

Where did Sarah Palin call for Assange to be killed?

That's slanderous, do you have proof of that?

Or is it just a hysterical, conspiracy theorist, throwaway line? (i.e. slander)

proscience? not facts obviously

No one is arguing that Assange should not be investigated just because of his status with Wikileaks. Rape is a serious charge, but it appears the charge is now not rape but sexual intercourse while not wearing a condom.

Wikileaks does not publish everything handed to them as clearly noted on their website especially in relation to risk to life. Perhaps there are one or two documents that one might think should not be published, but in the long term transparency serves us better than covert dealings and policy wrapped up in a veil of secrecy.

It might be the fuel for conspiracy theory but it is also the reality of politics. The reactions of the US government are more likely to foster conspiracy theories. Let the documents and responses speak for themselves.

The difference between publishing a person's private bank statement on the Internet and releasing information that shapes policy is vast. There is a privacy issue at stake with individuals - a right we all enjoy. What advantage is it for individuals to have access to private matters that do not affect anyone but the person to which the bank account belongs? It is not the same - governments represent the people they are acting on behalf of their citizens and the process should be transparent and include mechanisms to ensure accountability.

The reality check is no different from any other criminal case. Someone is accused, investigated, arrested (if applicable) then they are tried in a Court of Law. We cannot pretend that there are not conflicting and influencing issues that surround this case.

Both Assange and his accusers should be given the benefit of a fair hearing and let justice take its course.

As for conspiracy theories: many economic and political interventions of the past are now public and while once the fodder of conspiracy theories are now enshrined in historical fact. Most people are capable of reading, analysing data and using the tools of reason and probability to form an opinion. Everything is theoretical until disproved or validated and sometimes shades of grey between.

For those that don't believe Julian Assange has been set up you need to check out the following:

http://newmatilda.com/2010/12/08/what-has-really-been-disclosed

By James O'Neill.

It is riveting reading - and may explain the US concern as to what else is going to come out. There's also another excellent article in
"New Matilda" by Austin Mackell entitled, "They Lock Up Journalists,
Don't they?" that's worth a look.