This is one of the things that I was wondering about. Why isn't the UK willing and able to extradite him, when Sweden apparently is? What makes Sweden different?
The UK does appear to have some strict-ish rules regarding extradition, and only appears willing to extradite people when the matter would also be considered criminal under British law. (I'm not entirely sure whether Assange's publishing of leaked documents would be considered a criminal act that meets the standard in the UK.) Maybe there's something different about Swedish law that would make it easier?
To fully appreciate the answer to this question, you should read the articles which I have linked in my other reply. Here are some relevant quotes (see articles for links):
"...For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.
For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).
Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny."
"The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full seven years and counting; O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign to block his shipment to the U.S.; the NatWest Three were able to resist extradition to the US for four full years. These cases disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition."
The UK has not only cooperated with the US to render terrorism suspects, but has cooperated with Libya to render dissidents to Muammar Qaddafi. There is no reasonable argument that Assange is safer in the UK than in Sweden.
The UK does not have stricter rules regarding extradition than Sweden. That's a meme that germinated from a revision to the extradition rules that closed a gap between the US and the UK in which it was easier for the UK to extradite from the US than vice versa.
Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation, so the whole issue is moot.
> Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation
I don't mean this to sound combative, because I am really just curious about how practical the distinction is: Can't or shouldn't? What would happen to Sweden if it neglected to wait for the UK's approval and just stuck him on a plane to the US a day after he arrived?
You said a lot of things that lead me to believe you're probably not an expert in international law, so I'm going to exercise my prerogative not to take your word for this.
I'm not an expert. But consider what happened in the rendition case. The penalty imposed on Sweden was
"granting monetary compensation; permitting a new application for asylum in Sweden; and legislative changes prohibiting the use of diplomatic assurances."
Sweden paid less than half a million dollars to each of the two victims. The US would gladly reimburse Sweden 10 times that amount.
The UK does appear to have some strict-ish rules regarding extradition, and only appears willing to extradite people when the matter would also be considered criminal under British law. (I'm not entirely sure whether Assange's publishing of leaked documents would be considered a criminal act that meets the standard in the UK.) Maybe there's something different about Swedish law that would make it easier?