> Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition.
Assange is not wanted for questioning.
He is under warrant of arrest.
These are not the same thing. At all.
He hasn't been charged because he cannot in Swedish law be charged without first being arrested.
I find it quite telling that you choose to belabour this point rather than address the other issues.
He is under warrant of arrest, yes. And in Scandinavia this is used to bring someone in for questioning. This is what the prosecutor has repeatedly claimed is the purpose of the arrest warrant.
It is normal for such arrest warrants to be dropped with no subsequent charges. It also happens that they result in formal charges being brought.
I am not claiming that he might not end up getting charged as a result. He obviously can, if they can muster enough evidence.
I am on the other hand claiming that an arrest warrant means next to nothing in Scandinavia in terms of ascertaining the amount of evidence, and as such you can not use the existence of an arrest warrant as any kind of indication that he is more likely to actually have committed a crime, or that the police somehow has more evidence against him.
You repeatedly appear to try to make it sound as if the existence of an arrest warrant from Swedish authorities means far more than it does.
Assange is not wanted for questioning.
He is under warrant of arrest.
These are not the same thing. At all.
He hasn't been charged because he cannot in Swedish law be charged without first being arrested.