I mean, lets cover EVERY scenario.  Even the far fetched.

1) The UK denies to send him to Sweden.

Winners: Assange & Wikileaks

2) The UK sends him to Sweden, and he's let go.

Winners: Assange & Wikileaks

3) The UK sends him to Sweden and he's put in jail.

Winners: Assange & Wikileaks, even if he really is guilt, too many conspiracy theorests like you wouldn't believe it, so it only helps wikileaks and makes it look like they're persecuted.

4) The UK sends him to Sweeden and he is sent to the US and is found innocnet.

Winners:  Assange and Wikileaks.

5) The UK sends him to Sweeden, and to the US and he is put to death.

Winner: Wikileaks.  They have other members, and now they have a marytr who was killed under a law literally no legal expert said he would be found guilty over.  This is their biggest win yet.

6) He is killed somewhere enroute.

Winner: Wikileaks.  Again, they have their own martyr.

Where in this was there the least bit of benefit for the US government or Sweden?  People pretty much ALWAYS side with the accused on rape charges anyway, famous or not.  It's like the WORST crime you could try and frame someone for because even most people who comit the crime get off and get a pat on their back.

The only way he couldn't win on this is if they get he himself on an espionage law, then transfer him into a military court, or set him at Gitmo with the rest of the "kinda/sorta combatants" that sit in their little legal hole, or at least that's what they could have done, but the Obama administration would look absolutely horrible if they did that to him (or anyone else new at this point)

It'd be really contrived and awkward, but possible, and then once he was inside that system they could work to secure that encryption key, but of course even that wouldn't work because they're held on a hair trigger, probably would go off as soon as his extradition order to the US went through, or sooner

Me... I would turn myself in.  Either way it'll take months because he's fighting the extradition (I don't see why though, since if innocent the worst he has to fear is being sent to the US to be found innocent.)

Hell, even if he's guilty and found guilty, lots of people won't believe it and he can play the "political prisoner" card.  While if he's found not guilgy he can play it harder whether he was guilty or not.  He's got to do but gain... and considering how impossible it is to prove rape, let alone convince a jury even if you have evidence... I don't see the conflict.

He was denied bail by the way because he's an extreme flight risk.

What if the guy is innocent, and 'found guilty'?

We are all working on assumptions, and none of us really know nothing, besides the fact that this guy is a pain for the US government.

I do find interesting your sense of justice. In this kind of situations I don't give these people the benefit of the doubt,  thats why I think it was prudent that this guy hasn't turn himself until today.

Well, rape cases have less then a 10% conviction rate... and only a 2% false convcition rate.  Though it does happen occasionally, someone being convicted and falsey accused of rape is about as statistically unlikely a situation as you can get.

Honestly, the few cases where people have falsely been accused of rape, it's pretty much always been due to racism(white woman, non-white man) or the person already having a previous rape charge on him, and he didn't comit that particular rape.

As such, I really don't think I'd have anything to fear.   Besides, the maximium sentence for rape in Sweden is 6 years... and if he was really just accused of "not using a condom" it'd be 6 months in jail or a small fine.

Sex with no condom:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/sweden-assange-sex-without-condom/

It's pretty known that the swedish system is a laughing stock.

The fact, that one of the women threw a party for him after the "rape", and the other woman bragged about having sex with Assange is pretty telling. Both women also said it was consensual sex.

Which, is kind of the point?

The whole point of a conspiracy theory is "IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OBVIOUS".

You don't embark on a giant conspiracy theory to kill someone, while simaltaniously saying "THIS GUY SHOULD BE KILLED".

And you certaintly don't do it right in the middle of a big shitstorm.  You do it after things have died down... and even then, you just get someone to shoot him.

Seriously, tell me an endgame with this rape charge that in any way helps the US government.

Not only the US government;..But what are many hoping and I am not making this up that this would be the end of Wikileaks;.

Why is their an General/commanding Officer in Afghanistan saying this is good news?  It is good news because that would bring justice for the swedisch girls;.or good news because he thinks this is/will be the end of Wikileaks?  The sources of Assenge are probably shitting bricks......'What if he mentions my name'   and it also gives a message for the rest of wikileaks...

A)  Are you suggesting he wouldn't be happy that an accused rapist has been arrested?  Besides he's a general, what does he know?

B) The source of the leak was already caught.  What makes you think they even deal with names in the era of the internet?

C) Mentions their names how and why exactly?  Assuming there even are names.

D) Gives what message to the rest of Wikileaks?  If you post information we'll completely botch a conspiracy against you and make you 10 times more famous?  Yeah, great message there.

Your just blinded by the fact that he's famous and claiming a conspiracy where there is no credible or useful reason for their to be one.

A)  No I am suggesting he is happy because it could bring down wikileaks...Sure he is happy for the girls aswell but I doubt that is the main reason he is happy about it :).

B) All sources are caught?   C) Because they want to know how they could leak and who did it ...

D) It gives the message 'We have Assenge...And he could name some people...  Like who are also working on wiki leaks and who they have met etc;....