It's also a different thing. He's also wanted in the UK for breaching his bail conditions. So he not only has the extradition hanging over him but he's broken the law in the UK now.
The problem with this argument is nobody has produced any evidence to show Assange is 'persecuted'. Sweden issued a legitimate European Arrest Warrant, and the UK allowed Assange to appeal that to the highest court.
There is no evidence that he is being persecuted by the US in this matter: if Ecuador has some they should publish it.
> The problem with this argument is nobody has produced any evidence to show Assange is 'persecuted'.
Actually they have. Enough was presented to the Ecuadorian Government that they agreed he faced potential political prosecution. That's why he's been granted asylum.
> Sweden issued a legitimate European Arrest Warrant, and the UK allowed Assange to appeal that to the highest court.
Sweden issued an extremely unusual arrest warrant, and in the highest UK legal circles there is an opinion that the final Supreme court decision was simply wrong:
"The Supreme Court wrongly, and without any analysis, assumed that VCLT Article 31(3)(b) is applicable in the interpretation of secondary European acts such as the Framework Decision. It also neglected to look into the interpretative rules of the EU. The result was a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court." [1]
Assange is a Western dissident. You don't have to like him or agree with WikiLeaks mission, but the actions against WikiLeaks have been highly political, and manouverings by Sweden, the UK, and the US in line with the actions of any states acting against dissidents through various channels.
It was of course fundamental to Assange's appeal that the validity of the extradition warrant be examined by the court, with respect to the precedents mentioned. The opinion referenced in the citation examines the claim made by Assange's own lawyers that some or all of these precedents had not been argued in court.
For the suspicious mind, it could be seen that a disinclination to examine in full the very matter presented for examination, is indicative of at worst, bias, and at worst, as argued in the citation, error. Any further avenue of appeal in the UK has been refused.
I also find it ironic that British courts are willing to refuse extradition requests for terrorism suspects, say to Jordan, when an ambiguity regarding their immunity from torture or death arises, but will apparently allow it in other cases.
He's not a UK citizen so that's not it. The Australians aren't calling for his extradition or arrest so that's not it either.
It could just be that he had bail terms set and broke them and the Swedes want a chat about those pesky rape allegations. Don't invent something where it doesn't exist.
