1. They are not relevant because I don't believe they are at all true. INTERPOL is not in the business of hunting down people guilty of sexual misconduct. I don't think it is a coincidence that the former Undersecretary of Enforcement of the United States Treasury happens to be the head of INTERPOL and that INTERPOL happened to take a break from shutting down genocide, terrorism, and drug trafficking to go after one random sexual misconduct suspect.

2. I am torn on whether the governmental backlash Assange has faced is fair or not. On the one hand, all he is doing is taking information about our own governments and putting them up for public consumption. On the other hand, he is having an unnecessary negative effect on international relations, making governments paranoid, revealing the identities and locations of war informants and operatives which puts them in significant danger, and providing sensitive information (potentially out of context of action) to what is generally a dumb populace (I am on of those 'a person is smart, people are dumb' kind of people, but let's not get into that as I'm sure I'll get eaten for thinking that way).

2a. No point in getting into this, as it is basically the subject of your other thread. My opinion remains the same. However, I will say that the only thing I've heard of Palin saying is that he should be hunted down like we're hunting down Osama Bin Ladin, but if/when the American military ever finds Bin Laden they aren't just going to shoot him, they will bring him back for trial and all that like they did with Hussein. I think that statement was more of a call to the government to action than telling people to go try to kill him. Again it is an issue of interpretation, but even if you consider violence with the same message as her rhetoric to be her fault it is not like any American crazy can get to him anyway. I haven't read much else on right wing threats, but I don't generally follow those crazies anyway and have been on vacation since December up until a few days ago.

3. Um....tricky tricky. Like I said, it is bad that they released the information on the identities and locations of war operatives and informants. I do think that that is very wrong, and if Assange is to be punished for anything it should be that. As far as most of the other things that have gotten out, I consider it to be a little irresponsible (inciting international paranoia isn't exactly the best way to help countries work together and listen to each other), but not the end of the world. I think if he were to have edited his releases to not betray any information that could get foreign operatives and informants attacked or killed then he should have been left alone, only deterred through increased information security on the part of governments.

Alas though, he didn't, and I do believe he should be at least tried for that, but I don't think he should be labeled a terrorist. I am not familiar enough with any laws related to any government's information security to say that he should be brought up on anything further, but I'm sure he has broken numerous of those for any country he's said anything about, which I believe governments have the right to try him for also. I am torn on information security laws as a whole though. On the one hand some things obviously need to be kept confidential or people will die and I think that information should always be protected. At the same time, though, I think all governments would work better if they didn't have much to hide in the first place.