Because he's someone who has the guts to face the most powerful government in the world, uncover their lies, and give them the finger. That's why.

Is there anywhere a quick summary of the most extreme lies [edit: made by the US] that Assange has uncovered?

As far as I've seen (and I've only really read stories about Assange that have been posted here) what he's demonstrated is "war is horrible, and it's not going very well". That's important for us to know, but it's hardly ground-breaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks has a list of the most important leaks.

Those who downvoted, and the other replies to this have missed the point.

I know what Wikileaks has done. None of it fits the description "fac[ing] the most powerful government in the world [and] uncover[ing] their lies" any more than the most banal of broadsheets does.

You seriously believe that?

I haven't seen anything about the US that I wouldn't expect a broadsheet to turn over as a matter of course. This is why I asked my original question.

Since you seem to know the answer, perhaps you could point me to one of two examples of extreme lies that Assange has helped uncover.

I think you were a little late to the party there, wikileaks has done a lot of stuff before the war related leaks.

That's when they started to get serious headwind from various governments though.

I know, but mrleinad was specifically talking about Assange's dealings with the US so that's what I was asking about.

Because we assume he is innocent until found guilty. And because many powerful people want to get rid of him one way or another. This is not to say that he didn't do it, just that it's fairer to assume that he is innocent until conclusively proven otherwise.

Only it’s more a presumption of conspiracy until proven otherwise. And there really isn’t a way of proving otherwise, any such proof will likely be dismissed as yet another part of the conspiracy.

If we didn't have the "innocent until proven guilty" principle I would agree. That's the main point. The fact that there is a strong motif to discredit him only adds, even if slightly only, to the probability that he is not guilty.

I speak for myself, because this is my approach in regards to accusations; others may defend him solely for the presumption of conspiracy and would be quick to label a different guy as a rapist.