Update: Added a few sources.
Julian Assange is out on bail in the UK... under strict supervision of the police, anyway. The subject hinging on his release has been whether or not he is being held justly. This has been conflated with reports that the US is eager to prosecute the man for leaking US-classified documents to the Internet, and certainly there's reason to think that the Red Notice issued for Assange and the US's push to have him deported for prosecution related to Wikileaks are not coincidental to the event of the authorities seeking him on rape allegations.
This subject has been kicked around a bit, on the Daily Kos and elsewhere, particularly on the feminist sphere. I myself have been back and forth on what Assange at this point deserves, and the technicalities complicating the whole thing. In the process, I've managed to construct conflicting arguments, and I think that is where the heart of this confusion lies.
So let's deconstruct:
Issue 1: Rape allegations
One source which explains most of the facts I've outlined here.
BASIS: Two women have come forward claiming that Assange has raped them. In one case, the woman claimed that he refused to stop having sex after she withdrew consent. (She withdrew consent because the condom he was using broke.) In the second case, the woman claimed Assange assaulted her while she was sleeping, thus unable to give consent.
THE FACTS: Refusing consent to have sex is anyone's right at any time, even if that person is having sex at the time, or has had sex previously. Consent cannot be given if the person is intoxicated, unconscious, forcibly restrained, manipulated, or otherwise coerced. I am not a Swedish law expert but I do know that Sweden is one of several countries that have very liberal interpretations of sex crimes laws, and that this definition of consent is valid there.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS: The first woman says she was raped because the condom broke. The fact is that she did not want to have sex after the condom broke, and claims Assange forced her to.
OUTRIGHT WRONG: Any claim that a woman who has had sex, be it with that same person or others, prior to, immediately proceeding, or at that moment, if she fell for entrapment, or simply because she is female, cannot be raped because consent is permanent. Also wrong is the claim that these allegations are lies. Anyone who would make these claims is being disingenuous and a rape apologist.
TECHNICALITIES: These are allegations. The actual truth or fallicy of the claims cannot be verified at this time, which is why the Swedish authorities would like to question Assange.
Issue 2: Arrest
BASIS: Julian Assange was put on INTERPOL's "Red Notice" list, strongly encouraging international authorities to detain him if his whereabouts became known. British Authorities acted upon this information and held him pending extradition to Sweden.
THE FACTS: Assange has not be legally charged with sexual assault or rape. He is wanted for questioning, which is enough to legally issue an arrest warrant in Sweden.
Wikipedia:
Red Notice Requests (provisional) arrest of wanted persons (fugitives), with a view to extradition. An Interpol Red Notice is "the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today."[3] (Interpol does not have the authority to issue arrest warrants in the formal sense of the word, as this is the domain of the sovereign member states.)
Not Britain nor anyone else was obligated to arrest Assange.
Furthermore, it is unusual to issue a Red Notice for a person who has (allegedly) committed what are generally not considered extraordinary crimes (e.g. genocide, human trafficking). Assange has not officially been charged of rape, or of any crime.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS: Assange has been legally charged with sexual assault/rape. There have only been allegations made at this point, which is generally not strong enough to warrant arrest and detention.
The UK had no choice but to arrest Assange. This is not true. INTERPOL does not have authority over a country's legal or policing system.
OUTRIGHT WRONG: Assange has been arrested because of charges relating to Wikileaks.
TECHNICALITIES: Britain may have felt pressure both from INTERPOL and from the US to hold assange so that he could be extradited, and felt they had no choice.
With Assange in custody of either Britain or Sweden, it is more likely he would be extradited to another country on charges relating to Wikileaks, but no such proceeding is yet underway (that we know about).
***
I'm not even going to attempt to get into whether or not the US is legally obligated to press charges about Wikileaks, or whether Assange as the founder is the appropriate target for such charges. Personally, I think that Wikileaks should be considered protected under the 1st Amendment as a news organization would be. "Because it hurt our country" isn't a good enough reason to censor anything. If it hurt our country, our country probably wasn't in a good position to begin with. If we had good enough relationships with these countries, they'd laugh it off (and most did).
That said, I also don't think it's a good idea to just let the man go. He has the right to face his accusers and the accusers have the right to face him, and have an honest-as-possible review of their accusations. If the evidence is strong that Assange commmitted rape, he should be prosecuted, because rape is a serious and tangible crime, a crime which affects these women's lives arguably more than any of those diplomatic cables that were released did. This isn't me speaking as a feminist, but as a humanist; anyone has the right to see a person who harmed them be subjected to appropriate punishment.
And this is, I think, why so many feminist-leaning types are infuriated at Assange's defenders. In order to prevent Assange from being transferred to authorities who will prosecute him for Wikileaks-related crimes, he must be out from under any authority's watch, even those authorities who at this point merely want to ask him about these rape allegations. But this is like saying that because A->B and B->C, A->C, which is not necessarily the case.
There are many things that could happen. The US could decide Wikileaks falls under protection of the 1st Amendment, or that Julian Assange is not the correct target for Wikileaks-related accusations (we don't know who exactly released the documents; we assume Assange gave the green light). Britain or Sweden or whoever else could decide not to extradite him, or even that they don't have a strong enough case to prosecute him for sexual assault/rape.
Rape is a serious crime. It harms people, and refusing to follow up on accusations of it would be irresponsible on the part of the Swedish authorities, belittling and humiliating to the women who were brave enough to come forward about it, and sadly an all-too-common occurrances in the fight for women's rights. Do I think it warrants a Red Notice, arrest in Britain? Considering the nature of crimes for which most Red Notices are issued, probably not. Do I completely agree with people who helped with his bail? Not really, but I recognize he hasn't actually been charged with a crime yet. But as A->B is a case deserving of scrutiny, and it's not known at this point if B->C or D or X or Y, I think we all need to calm down a little.
And not be rape apologists.