I'm surprised you see the issue in such black and white terms. Certainly some of Mr Assange's comments might lead some to suspect he sees conspiracy where there is none [1] and that his judgement is not impeccable. Wikileaks and Assange have also turned on their partners, notably the Guardian, when circumstances have suited them [2] and their concerns for the safety of those mentioned in their releases have not always appeared sincere [3].

I'm not saying that these pieces of evidence point towards Mr Assange being guilty, evil or anything else, but they do suggest he's human and fallible, and perhaps not 100% pure in his intentions. I don't mean this as a criticism of him, but it does make me question any entirely polarised assertion about the man.

I've not been able to spot anything untoward in the way the UK courts have treated Assange, and I can't help but feel that if the charges are 'clearly false' they can be demonstrated as such in Sweden - a country that Mr Assange himself has in the past admired [4], but now seeks to label as the 'Saudi Arabia of feminism' [5]. Clearly going through such a procedure must be harrowing for all involved, and I'm not dismissing the stress lightly, but accusations of criminality being investigated is a key principle of society and in the Swedish legal system formal charges occur after extradition and questioning. This seems reasonable.

If Wikileaks' cause was noble it does not mean that Assange is automatically innocent, or that any investigation of him is a conspiracy.

[1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-j... [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/wikileaks-un... [3]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14765837 [4]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-... [5]: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/02/why-is-julia...