Just think: if he'd not tried to flee rape allegations in Sweden, he'd be free (or at least in a much more favourable situation) right now. Despite all the crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made extradition to the US less likely: two legal systems would need to approve (Sweden and UK), not just the UK.
>Despite all the crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made extradition to the US less likely
He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands of the US. Given that A) he had access to better legal advice than is generally dispensed by random strangers on the internet and B) the part about the US trying to snare him in spite of multiple denials ended up being 100% true I'm inclined to believe that he was probably on the mark.
>He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands of the US.
And he was crazy. Fleeing to the UK, America's staunches ally with a long history of cooperation with US law enforcement, especially in cases of extradition, in order to avoid possible extradition in Sweden is simply not sane.
Even taking the assumptions you're working with, that the Sweden charges were a ruse to allow Assange to be extradited, the argument fails because Assange fled this supposed conspiracy to a jurisdiction that is 100% guaranteed to cooperate in extraditing him to the US.
>he had access to better legal advice than is generally dispensed by random strangers on the internet
Considering the predicament his apparently genius legal counsel's advice put him in over the last decade, I'd say that's not a given at all. It seems much more like he's acting out of panic and desperation rather than some carefully-crafted legal strategy.
That's just how extradition law works: you're on loan, not given over forever, and in particular in the EU, you can't use a European Arrest Warrant just to grab someone so you can extradite them outside the EU without asking the origin state's permission, unless you're seriously implying he'd be black-bagged.
UK courts are fiercely independent and wouldn't be swayed by domestic or international pressure. There's zero chance the UK govt will prevent his extradition but he has a reasonably good chance the courts will stop it on human rights grounds, it does appear to be a political extradition.
I don't want to live in a world were "journalists" just dump any sensitive information they get their hands out with complete disregard for what harms it can cause, and doing nothing to actually vet the information beforehand.
If you really believe that three different papers actively hit crucial information, then there's not much I can say that would convince you otherwise honestly.
What if you just didnt check? It's the rule, not the exception that these orginizations are filters. Access to original sources breaks their hold on deciding what is real.