Another take, with no more or less evidence as far as I can tell: He essentially had no choice, as it was obvious he was going to be railroaded at any trial, and would likely be bounced to the US at some point.

> and would likely be bounced to the US at some point.

From Sweden?

He fled Sweden, which has stronger protections against extradition, for the UK which has weaker protections. Had he been extradited from the UK to Sweden, further extradition to the US would have been prohibited.

This was far from "obvious". Extradition from Sweden would have been harder than from the UK.

Not if the request was dropped before he got to Sweden. The prosecutor demonstrated that point very clearly today.

Extraordinary rendition from Sweden would have been much easier though.

But he was right.

It happened. He was proven correct.

The people who disagreed were just wrong.

And I think it is OK to call the people who didn't believe this, to have been extremely misinformed.

He was extradited from the UK, not from Sweden.

He hasn't been extradited from anywhere to anywhere. He's still serving time in prison for jumping bail, and he will have a chance to argue against his extradition to the US early next year. If he does lose his extradition battle and does get sent to the US, he will have a further opportunity to defend himself against the crimes that he is accused of committing there.

In other words, the legal avenues that the moron could have availed himself of a decade ago are now open to him.

If anyone thinks that Assange was ever in danger of being extraordinarily renditioned to the US from Sweden then they need to consider that a decade ago he was high-profile enough for the Ecuadorians to stick their necks out for him.

Unless he would have experienced better conditions had he not taken refuge in the embassy, his conditions are not self-imposed.

There's a good chance that Swedish prison conditions are not particularly harsh, as prisons go (Never having experienced the inside of one, I must admit).