A few things are important to note here.

Firstly, after his first round of questioning, the investigation was stopped, and the chief prosecutor said that there was no reason to suspect him of sexual assault. It was resumed with no apparent trigger a few months later, when he moved to the UK. What caused this?

Secondly, he has yet to be formally charged with any crime. He is wanted for a round of questioning which could easily take place over the phone. So why does Sweden want him so badly?

Thirdly, the British government has gone to great effort to surround the Ecuadorean embassy with police, fill the corridors and at one point threaten to storm the embassy, to arrest a man who has been charged with nothing so that he can be extradited on the evidence of nothing except questionable testimony.

There is SOMETHING going on here, even on the off chance that he is guilty of this sexual assault.

A) They found the second victim and concinved her to talk... and physical evidence came back from lab.

B) In sweeden you can't officially charge him with a crime until the end of an interview.   They want to question him in person, so they can arrest him and charge him with a crime.  They can't do the interview over the phone, because they won't be able to arrest him afterwords and charge him with a crime.

This is done so that the stigma of being charged with a crime only applies after you get out your side of the story to the police, no matter how guilty you might be, like in the case of Julian Assange.  Since they didn't charge him the first time, they have to wait till they interview him again before they can charge him.

C) Because he's a world renown figure trying to use his power to skirt the law... and has made the UK look like a complete ass in doing so.

*ROFL*

So Deep Throat was an information leaker (not a whistle blower) and what he did was wrong?

"Wiki" (pronounced [ˈwiti] or [ˈviti]) is a Hawaiian word meaning "fast" or "quick".

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki )

So it is an Hawaiian diaper?

Take yourtheoretical example that has nothing to do with actual leaks from WikiLeaks: There is a simple ward against leaks about governmental contracts for personal gain - make the contracts public from the beginning. It's taxpayers money that is used here, the one paying should know what he is paying for. If all governmental contracts are open, an possible leaker has nothing to gain.

I fully support the intent of organizations like Wikileaks. I am all for more transparency in government, either willingly from the government or unwilling through groups like Wikileaks. It's arguable Wikileaks had a hand in starting the Tunisian uprisings, with its leaking of information about the Tunisian ruling class' lavish lifestyle.

Wikileaks (and the information age in general) helps to ensure that people are in control of their governments, as opposed to governments being in control of their people.

Though it's funny watching the far right patriotic types around me contort themselves over this issue. People like my dad are convinced Obama is secretly up to no good, signing stuff in back rooms all over the world that'll take all our guns away and sell us out to Russia, but when a whistle-blowing group like Wikileaks pops up, suddenly its all "they'll reveal our secrets and hurt our troops! Treasonous swine!" Then they go on continuing to believe the exact type of conspiracies an organization like Wikileaks would reveal.

Definitely support them. As someone else in this topic said, they should have taken out specific names before leaking certain classified intel, but as a whole they are good for our country. It's important the everyday citizen has an idea and how our government has a hand in so much shit. The more informed we are the more power we have.

Why shouldn't he be questioned under the jurisdiction - and in the same country - that the alleged offence took place? Now it just looks like he's running away from that situation as well as everything else. Not promising.

As for Wikileaks, I'm all for transparacy but I think anyone leaking official documents should do so with tact. 

Didn't you read my reply? Ecuador were willing to work with Sweden in this matter, but the fact that Sweden could not assure anyone that Assange would not be extradited to a 3rd country such as the US was the reason why Ecuador granted Assange political asylum. If they could have assured Ecuador otherwise, then they would have had the opportunity to question him.

You can't be "all for transparency" and attach conditions. The reason why the leaked documents came as a shock were the sheer quantity and nature of them. No amount of diplomacy would have lightened the blow, but had the US government did it's job towards transparency in the first place, they could have set the conditions as to what way these documents were released. Let's not forget, this is a failure to act by the government, so journalism had to play the role. Yes, that does make people think that the government betrayed them, as all journalistic discoveries do.