I think the claims have always been more along the lines that why go out of the way to have Sweden extradite Assange for charges that haven't popped up when he was right there in the U.K.?
Prime Minister Cameron reinforced the other day that the 'special relationship' still exists, so why should Assange have more to fear from Sweden than the U.K.?
Because Assange is not charged with anything they can nail him for in the UK. The fact the UK government is nonetheless spending 8 million annually just policing the embassy suggests they hold a rational belief they can get their way with him in Sweden, possibly before he is even charged with anything.
Seriously... has the government ever spent even 1/2 that amount in a situation where someone is wanted for extradition but has yet to be charged for a non-crime? How about 1/10th or 1/100th of that amount? If Assange really had nothing to fear in Sweden the rational act for the UK government would be giving him passage to Ecuador, saving millions in useless spending, and cashing in the whole thing a favor to the OAS.
> Because Assange is not charged with anything they can nail him for in the UK.
He's not charged by the U.S. for anything that they can nail him for in either Sweden or the U.K.
If that changes U.K. law is unlikely to be significantly more flexible for Assange on national security concerns than Swedish law.
What Assange is charged with under Swedish law is also a crime in the U.K. by the way, as ruled by the U.K. High Court itself.
One big part of "due process" that progressives push for is that you should not get special treatment just because you are famous (or infamous, for that matter).
And if they wanted to extradite him, they don't need him to be in Sweden first. This is the problem with conspiracy theories; there's an excess of path-dependence which leads to absurd conclusions. If Assange's attorneys are correct and the US has prepared an indictment against Assange, they could just ask the UK to extradite him directly to the US, since the US and UK have rock-solid treaty relations. There is absolutely no need to get him to Sweden first.
Believing in the conspiracy theory also involves ignoring Assange's tweets saying things like 'Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism' as opposed to simply denying that anything untoward happened.
It's even dumber than that, because extraditing him from Sweden is harder, since it would at this point be subject to the approval of both the UK and Sweden.
Assange volunteered to go to Sweden if given a guarantee against extradition to the United States.
The only conspiracy theory on display is your allegation that the UK government is so inept it actually prefers to spend 8 million a year provoking a diplomatic row with Ecuador and the OAS instead of acceding to a perfectly reasonable request.
I'd suggest against using the word "lucky" to describe any situation in which innocent people can be forcibly extradited for "questioning" despite volunteering to be questioned locally, over the telephone/Internet, or even agreeing to traveling abroad if given a guarantee they won't be packed up and shipped to a third-country with a history of extrajudicial torture.
Your insistence that this case is following "the process and legal rules of criminal investigations" is laughable and only shows you know next to nothing about how said rules are usually interpreted and applied.
It's easy to gin up outrage by trying to reframe basic mechanisms of the justice systems of pretty much every modern country as abnormal or abusive. For instance, the notion that you can be extradited to face charges seems banal, until you introduce the notion that someone might want to "face their charges" in a totally different country over video link.
