> He claimed that his reason to do so was to avoid extradition to the US, [...]. But he had to make himself look like a victim of a conspiracy instead, and his followers eats it up.
First of all, that's unrelated to the extradition to Sweden. He said that he didn't want to go to Sweden because then he would be more likely to get extradited, but the opposite was true. He fought to stay in the UK, but fled when all legal options to avoid going to Sweden was exhausted.
Second, the US has had seven more years to build a case now, and a new Republican government.
> First of all, that's unrelated to the extradition to Sweden.
It's not "unrelated". It shows the US wants him, as he claimed.
You write that the UK would have had to authorize a further extradition from Sweden to the US, but does that authorization depend on the same level of judicial review?
"Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities" http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
Sounds like Assange wasn't that wrong?