Perhaps one of the best reality checks with respect to the issue at stake with respect to the arrest of Assange is that provided by US Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona).

Senator McCain describes the Wikileaks publication of classified material as "an incredible breach of [US] national security".

John McCain is perhaps uniquely qualified to make this assessment. He has served in the US forces (I think as a Naval Aviator), including during the Viet Nam conflict, during which he became a POW in then North Viet Nam. He has also served the US as a diplomat, having been US Ambassador (post the 'American War') in ..... Hanoi, Viet Nam, the very place of his former imprisonment as a POW. To all reports he enjoyed great respect from the Vietnamese during his term as Ambassador. He has, of course, been a US Senator, and was a leading contender for the Republican party's nomination as its Presidential candidate at the last presidential election.



McCain, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, http://bit.ly/ihKPHQ :

"pressed Pentagon leadership ... as to why nobody
-- other than a very junior soldier -- has been
held responsible for the leak of thousands of secret
national security documents to WikiLeaks. In a tense
exchange, McCain asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates
whether the Pentagon has identified or punished anyone else.

"Have you held anyone responsible?" McCain asked.

"Not yet," replied Gates, who earlier said the criminal
investigation limits the Defense Department's ability
to conduct an independent investigation."



The way I'd read that, and I suspect the way McCain read it, was that legitimate inquiry by a person of proven character and ability was just being fobbed off. The US Administration focussing more on the 'evil' of Wikileaks publishing something of believably public interest than upon the root cause, poor security of classified information. The US Administration, unless it is behind a deliberate release of such information, seemingly more concerned at protecting its reputation that its nation.

As McCain said, "[The leaks have been happening] since July".

The claimed events in Sweden happened in mid-August.

Another view: http://bit.ly/hqKTpg

Here is the latest

http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/julian-assanges-accusers-are-jealous-liars-says-lawyer-bjorn-hurtig/story-fn79cf6x-1225969824914?from=heraldsun

<WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange's lawyer said he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistle-blower is innocent of sex assault claims made against him by two women.

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.>

What ever the truth is, it is going to get lost in all the sensationalism.

This high profile case is just the case for psychopathic feminists to push their own political agenda regardless of the innocence or guilt of the accused, even if he is innocent, the story will be distorted to meet the purpose of their own biases and prejudices.

One cannot help but suspect that this case only serves as a means to justify the psychopathic feminists villification of males.

This bloke will end up in Cuba. It's the way he went about gaining information. Espionage, will be the charge.

James,

And what if the shoe is on the other foot ? Isn't that up to a court to decide ? Not you or me, not public opinion, but the courts ?

Joe

JamesH, I've read the article to which
you kindly linked, but I see no reference
at all to "psychopathic feminists".
Mr Assange's lawyer is quoted as saying
that his accusers have a "hidden agenda",
but there is no indication as to what that
might be.

I'm genuinely interested in this angle
of the case, so I wonder if you could
provided some evidence for your assertion
that the accusations are bogus because
they come from "psychopathic feminists"?

Or could it be that you have your own "agenda"?

If the basis for these nebulous Swedish allegations weren't constructed so loosely of fairy thread, then it might be possible to take them more seriously.
Nope, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck (in the form of trumped-up sex charges being used in an attempt to neutralise the accused).