By no means. The arguments generally present on here was that: 1) He'd already been in custody in the UK for some time, so if the US wanted him, and the UK wa

By no means. The arguments generally present on here was that: 1) He'd already been in custody in the UK for some time, so if the US wanted him, and the UK was willing to hand him over, then that would have already taken place, but had not. 2) Under EU rules, if the UK has extradited him to Sweden, and then the US asked for him, both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to hand him over, making him strictly safer in Sweden than in the UK. 3) Much of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of being charged with a capital crime, but under EU rules neither the UK nor Sweden could have handed him over to face a capital charge. 4) Much of the remainder of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of going to Sweden, but he was already in the UK, and the UK is famously willing to cooperate with the US. The UK was not a safe place for Assange to be! All four points have been vindicated by events so far. What Assange ended up doing was finding a way to avoid going to Sweden and instead hang out in the UK for so long that eventually the US asked, and the UK handed him over, just as expected. Had Assange quietly gone to Sweden to contest the charges against him, would things have worked out better for him? We'll never know now, but it's very plausible. > Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. In any case, the specific claims he made remain, at best, unsubstantiated. He wasn't extradited from Sweden, and he isn't facing a capital charge.