On whose authority is he working for

@ 579. You are jumping to conclusions. Who has called him a saint? I, for one, have simply said he is entitled to due process and considered innocent until proven guilty. That is what any person who lives in a civilised country should be entitled to.

Nobody has to admit that he has compromised the well-being of any country. You are naive to even think that.

As for the critical sites, they are sites that the US deemed to be critical in their interest, not necessarily the interest of the host nation. If these sites are critical, then they should be well guarded. Some of the people who owned or worked at these sites didn't even know they were "critical". What would the US do if these people didn't so-operate with them?

Assange himself is simply a spokesperson for Wikileaks, but he is not Wikileaks. He is in gaol, but the information is still being released.

As for the "rape" charge, he is not being charged with rape by the same definition as most countries define it. Both women have admitted to having consensual sex with him and both of them withdrew their charges against him in August. The charges of rape were resurrected by the Swedish prosecutor without the two women asking that it be done. All they wanted was for him to submit to a test for STDs.

On whose authority are the newspapers working when they publish all this material. The number of people who have access to this information via Wikileaks itself is rather small but when the world's major newspapers publish it, they are vastly increasing the number of people who have access to it. Why are they not being hounded, arrested and chased down?

Objectivity is needed here, not blanket assumptions.

Peter Hume,

Once again, I agree with you!

579,

Dear, oh dear....more nebulous qualifiers concerning the likelihood (or not) of the culpability of Assange.
We already have "maybe", "could", "possibly" "allegedly", "might", and "potentially"- and now you add "supposedly" to the mix.
Right on!

Thanks, everyone, for such detailed comments and criticism.

1. Re: the specifics of the warrant. The bail hearing transcript details these. There are a number of allegations, including one that alleges consent for sex was withdrawn after a condom broke, and that Mr Assange continued despite this. This satisifes many definitions of sexual assault - a non-consensual sexual act. The difference is that there is arguably a greater risk of harm if carried out without use of a condom.

2. Re: the two women being Wikileaks volunteers. This is hardly a smoking gun, nor does it lend weight to the idea that these allegations form a conspiracy. It is possible, but cannot be construed as proof without corroborating evidence. It is equally likely they joined Wikileaks out of admiration for the organisation's work, and met Mr Assange socially through this.

3. Re: my 'Pollyanna' view of the judicial system. The best course of action is to let the courts do their job. This is not to say that the courts are infallible, nor that corruption might not exist. I would pose this counter-question: what good alternative is there? If Mr Assange had not surrendered and engaged an excellent legal team, he would have remained a wanted fugitive. Perhaps this is beneficial to a folk-hero reputation, but it would have damaging consequences for his quality of life.

In coming forward, Mr Assange shows himself willing to abide by judicial processes and to challenge the courts to prove his guilt. It demonstrates his belief in his innocence, and stymies the accusations of those who would use his flight as 'proof' of his guilt.

Above all, it ensures that the situation plays out under close global scrutiny. This puts intense pressure on all parties involved to act legally, transparently and ethically. The possibility of corruption can never be completely removed - but in the public eye, it is difficult to hide from a world that is increasingly cynical, and increasingly well-educated in discerning such behaviour.

Julian Assange is a tortured victim-creation of his society.

The Truth is that Julian is not responsible for placing individuals in danger - american society is because it facilitated the various wars etc that cause death to occur.

BUT - Julian is old-hat. His is a shallow case.

For the real meaty case, visit http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com

I think it is extremely irresponsible of anybody, including Ms Dalton, to be writing pieces about the Assange sexual assault charges in Sweden.

We have no real idea what these charges are. We have no right to pre-judge anybody involved.

All we have is incomplete information and what looks like astonishing co incidences.

Aside from that, it's sad when somebody can't recognise the enormous global significance of the Wikileaks dump, above and beyond the content of the cables.

Assange has taken sole responsibility for this dump - no one else in Wikileaks has been hounded and threatened with assassination. He is the front man and he's paying the price.

Nobody says he's a messiah - but plenty of people recognise the astonishing feat he's pulled off, whether or not they like it.

In the matter of evidence that the US are waiting for the Swedes to hand him over - that's a joke, right? You don't really expect to find any evidence for that anywhere, do you?

There was no evidence for weapons of mass destruction either, but look what happened there.

The hysteria has come from the US authorities and has been until today supported by our own government. Visa Mastercard Paypal and all the rest of them have been a trifle hysterical in refusing him service, wouldn't you say?

No matter what your opinion of Assange, what he has done and what he has set in motion is absolutely remarkable and he deserves credit for that.

When did you last do something that caused such an uproar about illegitimate government secrecy, Ms Dalton?

This is not in the same ball park as UFO's and I suggest that in attempting to make it so you are joining with those authoritarian minds who's sole reaction to the Wikileaks situation is to employ a classic anti whistler blower tactic of minimising the messenger, the better to minimise the message.

Ms Dalton is absolutely right about everything. The Kangaroo court has been in process, and the verdict is it's a witch hunt.
So now this man is up for rape.
He sounds like a common thug doesn't he.
I think the hero status is far premature.
I wonder if anyone can really say they have learnt something useful from these classified stolen pages of information.