It's been a while since I read through various reporting and accounts, but as I recall from memory, here are a few pertinent points:

- The two women involved asked whether Assange could be compelled to take a test for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). They did not allege rape.

- The initial prosecutor dropped their investigation as not meeting criteria that would merit its continuance.

- Later, a second prosecutor -- in a different district and with no prior involvement -- picked the case up and pursued it further. Why?

- Assange stayed in Sweden upwards of a month and did participate in questioning. He left after the case was supposedly dropped and he was told, in response to his question, that he was free to travel abroad.

- Subsequent to his travel to England, Swedish authorities reopened the case and sought him for further questioning.

- Assange was willing to participate in further questioning, but upon advice of his attorneys declined to return to Sweden. Swedish law permits questioning to procede under such circumstances.

- Up to this point, Assange was not charged with any crime. He was simply "wanted for further questioning". If anything, the Swedish prosecutors seemed to be going out of their way to avoid charging him with any crime -- perhaps seeking to avoid causing any "warning", either informally or in some legal sense.

- When Assange refused to return, Sweden finally issued an Interpol Red Notice. Red Notices are the highest level of Interpol "flag". They are very rarely used. This was issued for someone wanted for questioning regarding alleged rape -- an allegation apparently made by a prosecutor but not by the actual alleged victims.

- Some fairly convincing, if circumstantial, evidence has been identified and reported that the U.S. has indeed convened a grand jury. This includes someone having identified the specific grand jury identification number. Decomposition of said number (it's constructed using various aspects of the grand jury timing and topic) shows that the grand jury is investigating a topic pertaining the Espionage Act.

- Apparently (I've seen less on this), one of the women involved has refused to sign her initial statements or to participate further in the Swedish investigation. The other woman has left Sweden. Now, granted, publicity and "blowback" from Assange supporters might well be a cause for this. But we don't have any reports of this being the case nor of specific events that might show such activity. On the other hand, it does not present a picture of two victims of rape seeking justice (in Sweden, where women's rights are much more supported than in many countries).

--

I don't mean to minimize the very real crime and trauma of rape. But upon digging into the specific details and timeline of this situation, it really starts to stink.

P.S. I'm reading some of the more specific, step by step descriptions of the sexual activity allegedly involved. If Assange did indeed force intercourse without the use of a condom, then I'm all for him being charged. Although this still seems at odds with the publicly observed personal interactions that continued for days after the alleged events.

Even if this were to be the case, it does not mean that the U.S. is not leaving no stone unturned in its effort to get its hands on Assange. And, if nothing else, the treatment of Manning -- now formally classified as torture by the U.N. -- seems to provide clear indication that extradition to the U.S. might well result in the violation of Assange's rights.

This is what happens when a government stoops to criminal activity. It no longer has any credence, even were its case to be legitimate.

And finally, once again, I'll ask: Where are the reprimands and punishments for those responsible who mis-designed and mis-managed such a fucked up intelligence information system? And for those whose criminal activities were identified by the leaked information.

U.S.A. -- land of hypocrisy.