You are acting upon assumptions, and treating them as though they are the irrevocable truth. You can't prove he didn't molest those women, and you can't prove Sweden and America invented to whole story just to get him extradited.
And I know I can't prove he raped or abused those women, but I'm not saying he did. I'm saying he should face trial for it. Surely you must agree that allegations of sexual assault cannot be ignored?
I've been following Assange for several years now, a time before he got in trouble with the rape charges. I wanted to contribute to WikiLeaks, but found out I could not because Visa and Mastercard black-balled the organization. That was when I knew something was up. That's when I realized that WikiLeaks was a threat to some very powerful interests.
I was following it when he retained a British barrister to handle the case. He was quite good, and made it clear they were HAPPY to cooperate with the Swedish authorities in their "new" investigation, after the "old" one was declared not a case by the first Swedish prosecutor.
I also follow the parallel case, Bradley Manning. Having served in the US Army myself, I was shocked when Manning's C-in-C declared him guilty, in public, before any trial.
So, I understand full well that as Orwell predicted, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a radical act. So radical that ordinary folks cannot contribute to the cause of Wikileaks, so radical that the entire federal government, including congresscritters, have called for Assange's head.
Being American, I've always respected the British for their devotion to liberty with the Magna Carta and strong history of juries standing for justice and individual rights. But I must admit that my faith in the British government has been sorely tested by this turn of events.
"innocent until proven guilty" used to mean something, but not no mo. Not here in the US and certainly not in Britain.
Screw the Magna Carta, we're more into lynch mobs, is the message one gets here across the Atlantic.