Quite aside from the specifics of this case, there are two more general issues here that deserve consideration.
The first is the European Arrest Warrant. I'm a pretty pro-European person, but the EAW is horrible. There are next to no common standards applied to what sort of crimes justify the issuance of a EAW, and no burden of evidence is required to arrest someone. In the current case, Assange has not been charged because, as many have pointed out, he needs to be questioned on Swedish soil before he can be charged. That's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be permitted under an EAW. There should be a formal recognition that the prosecuting party must present enough evidence to demonstrate the feasibility of their case, and the extradition should not occur unless charges have been laid. If that requires signatories to the EAW pact to change some laws back home, permitting them to interview suspects abroad, then so be it. It is not right that residents in a country can be more easily arrested by prosecutors from another country than their own.
The second issue relates to the first, in that both Sweden and the UK have agreed to lopsided extradition treaties with the USA. More than that, both countries have taken part in rendition of people who subsequently have been tortured, held without trial, etc. Well guess what? You reap what you sow. Many of us were making the point that by allowing these things to happen, countries like the UK and Sweden undermine the trust that people have in their legal systems. Arguing about whether or not the USA intends to apply for Assange's extradition, and whether or not Sweden is likely to agree to it, is missing the point. Sweden and the UK first need to rewrite their extradition treaties with the USA on more equal terms, and display genuine contrition for their appalling role in the rendition operations.
