You're going to have to write a book or two of argumentation, because you seem like you're drawing parallels between intersecting lines
Arguably, this is bullshit. The UK might be dangerously friendly with the US on multiple fronts, but e.g. France has refused to extradite Polanski forever, refuses to hand over control of their nukes to NATO, and pursues an independent but aligned foreign policy to the US.
While US would prosecute him if they could , they have not tried anywhere as hard to extradite him like they are doing with Assange .
Assange is not a UK citizen , UK has some of the weirdest privacy and human rights laws they are not fully part of EHCR anymore and actively trying to deport refugees to Rwanda , France is hardly in the same category as UK .
I wouldn’t characterize UK as country with strong human rights they are pretty exploitative (see how they treated windrush generation or the Gurkhas )
Crimes that directly threaten the sovereign are always the most serious crimes especially if they involve waging war against it or undermining its war effort. This is a constant throughout all societies. The next most serious class of crimes would be those that undermine the state's control of the financial system which is critical to its power. That's also why the US government has thrown the book at those who trespassed in the Capitol as part of a comically incompetent attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Likewise, intentional tax evasion is going to get the book thrown at you. When the state feels genuinely threatened, "human rights" and "constitutional rights" are irrelevant and will be "interpreted" to allow whatever the state wishes to do.
Really? It doesn't seem that way at all to me, it seems only few rioters have been given a slap on the wrist, none of the key organizers are in jail, neither is head of the moment, many of them who attempted to overthrow the government are serving in congress even now. The leader is the presumptive nominee of a major political party and openly talks about being a dictator when elected. Not one have been disqualified under 14th amendment and does not look at all likely before the election.
The extremely slow speed and ineptitude at which the system has moved so far is just astonishing and is completely counter to your point on Government moves faster, harder when its survival is at stake, compare that to say how quickly Brazil has reacted to a similar attempt by Jair Bolsonaro.
> far more serious a crime than (allegedly) raping a child because
It is sad that we have come far to these days characterize actions by foreign reporters not subject to any U.S. law whatsoever and who merely published and did not leak themselves damning evidence of atrocities and war crimes committed in violation of Geneva convention of which US is a signatory as crimes.
Also I cannot but help notice that you feel need to say allegedly about an horrific incident in which no one disputes the facts, but afford no such benefit of doubt to Assange.
Maybe we really do need a little dance with authoritarianism here to remind people what that is.
Even its allies aren't free of government interference from the US.
But US allies are not "free" in the sense that they can't do something that the US really doesn't like. Japan's government, for example, would not be trying to repeal its pacifist constitution unless they had the US's blessing to re-militarize.
Basically, there are 2 different senses in which a country can be called "free". But even in the individual liberty sense, a libertarian (either of the Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky variants) would not consider the US or any of its allies to be free and acting like they are libertarian countries is a good way to become a martyr.
This isn't as crazy as it sounds because the Roman Empire had provinces which were technically "independent" monarchies aligned with Rome. Most famously, Egypt under Cleopatra and Judea under Herod.