Yup they do so where is your evidence he was going to be extradited from Sweden to the US?

You need to read the UK High Court ruling. As is explained there, if Sweden had sufficient evidence to charge Assange in absentia they could do so and issue a European Arrest Warrant. The problem is that this would require the prosecution to demonstrate probable cause and proportionality to a public Swedish court:

> Under Swedish law the issue of a domestic detention order in absentia was a precondition to the issue of an EAW. That order was issued by a court which... had to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause and that domestic arrest was proportionate.

The Swedish prosecution (a political appointee) is claiming she cannot demonstrate probable cause without interviewing Assange, and yet she refuses to interview him. Leaving aside the absurdity of any reasonable person thinking that any interview will give the Swedish authorities the smoking gun they obviously lack, from a legal standpoint the only sensible explanation for their behavior is that it allows the option of extraditing without public judicial consideration of probable guilt and proportionality of prosecution. Couple that with the very obvious irregularity of the prosecution, the very real prospect of Assange facing indefinite detention in Sweden and the refusal to offer any guarantees against hand-over to the States and there is plenty of evidence that his concerns are very well founded.

That explains a possible UK -> Sweden extradition, not a Sweden -> US extradition.

As stated above, you need to read the UK Court Ruling at a minimum, since there is no point in discussion if you are not familiar with even the basic legal issues involved. And once you are done that you should read up on Swedish extradition policies.

The fact that extradition is legally possible and the Swedish prosecution is proceeding against all common reason and established judicial practice in the only way that keeps it possible is very much "probable cause" as regards the motives of the Swedish prosecution and thus constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that Assange's concerns about extradition to the United States are sensible.

Is this the ruling you're talking about? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

The paragraphs are conveniently numbered. Which one discusses extradition to the United States?

Section 142 and particularly sections 7 through 10 are all about extradition. The reveal is the defense of Assange's case as being in the "preliminary investigation" stage and the catch-22 logic used to justify the Swedish refusal to move beyond it. As any schoolboy can find out by reading up on the matter, it is critical for extradition to the US that the investigation does not pass this stage, since actually charging Assange would give him legal protections which make extradition difficult, some of which are even outlined for you in Section 144.

Of course, since your objection is disingenuous (you cannot possibly be so naive as to believe that the Swedish prosecutor will publicly state that her goal is to indefinitely detain a suspect), let us just force your actual beliefs into the open: (1) why do you believe that an interview with Assange will provide the Swedish prosecutor evidence to prosecute if she doesn't already have it? (2) why do you coonsider it reasonable to extradite someone who has never been charged with a crime to answer questions instead of asking them over the telephone, Skype or in person?

Not even the UK High Court considered the Swedish position reasonable (see Section 160), so it is hard to imagine any sentient person coming to the opposite conclusion.

It raises the question of what Sweden really wants. They admit to not having evidence of his guilt, and they don't have a real plan to get evidence. So why do they want him in their territory so badly?

A few years ago, I would have said it was pure paranoia/conspiracy theory to suspect Sweden would extradite Assange.

However, look at what happened to Snowden, stuck at the Moscow airport, because no country in the world (bar Ecuador and Cuba, I think) was brave enough to take him (fearing US wrath). The pressure from the US was immense.

At some point a plane flying from Moscow to Ecuador (via Paris) was intercepted and forced to land in Vienna, because it was suspected that Snowden was on it. An out-in-your-face violation of international law.

So, it is now completely reasonable to assume that, if "asked", Sweden would extradite Assange to the US, where he is a wanted man.

The cases aren't really comparable. No matter what you think of Snowden, he definitely broke US law in a pretty serious way. Assange is a publisher, as far as anyone can tell he's not broken any US laws.

This is all about finding a convenient law to exert political power, not legal comparability.

From The Guardian: "The US government is conducting an active, long-term criminal investigation into WikiLeaks, a federal judge has confirmed in court documents"

Feinstein (and other Congressmen/Senators) wanted Assange – who isn’t even a U.S. citizen and never served in the U.S. Government – prosecuted for espionage for exposing war crimes.

More here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/05/us-government-s...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/12/dianne-feinste...

So why stay in the UK? While appealing the extradition to Sweden, he was happy to stay in the UK. It was only when the UK legal system said that he had to go to Sweden that he went to Ecudarian embassy?