Not simpler to extradite him then and there, but simpler to extradite him at some point in the future, assuming the investigation would've been successful

Edit: HN doesn't let me reply so deep in a thread unless I wait like 20 minutes. It'd have been simpler if he were detained as they'd have had a guarantee of his jurisdiction and plan accordingly. I imagine having him arrested in a country that had allowed CIA extraordinary rendition would've been better for them than having him protected in Ecuadorian embassy.

He was in Britain for over a year before he entered the embassy. As you can see now, the UK authorities would have arrested him in response to an extradition request.

Why would it be simpler in the future?

Given the politicized nature of the crimes he's charged with in the US, neither country was likely to extradite him unless they had a politically safe reason to arrest him in the first place.

So why is the US requesting extradition now? He has not been arrested in relation to the rape allegations.

It's for an alleged "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion" with Chelsea Manning where the US claims he helped Manning get access to a passphrase so they could get some more documents[1]. We found out -- though it was criminally under-reported -- in 2018 that a case had been filed by the DOJ[2], but it's now public.

[1]: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/wikileaks-founder-julian... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/16/julian-assange...

No, I mean that the US doesn't have any more of a "politically safe" reason for extraditing him than it ever did, so far as I can see.

Or an electoral campaign around the corner...