> Sweden cannot extradite him to the US without the UK's consent.
That's not really true. Sweden _isn't supposed to_ extradite him without the UK's consent. But is the UK going to go to war over it? If not, then really Sweden can do whatever it pleases.
"The most important point is that as long as it is externally marked to show its status, the "bag" has diplomatic immunity from search or seizure,[2] as codified in article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag
Now reconcile that information with this new seemingly contradictory information:
"Action required – Assange to be arrested under all circumstances," reads a handwritten briefing note photographed in the hands of one of the officers surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy. The note says Assange is to be arrested if he leaves the embassy in the company of another diplomat or if the Ecuadorians try and smuggle him out in the diplomatic bag."
And even better, they contradict themselves on this policy from the get-go:
"When it comes to its own diplomatic materials, however, the British government takes a harder line. It issued a strong protest when the sanctity of its own diplomatic bag was violated by Zimbabwean authorities in 2000."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assa...
People violate the Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations regularly it seems when it suits their purposes. The idea that Sweden is somehow prevented from doing something inside her own borders because of some toothless international "law" (what is the punishment for failing to abide by the agreement?) is laughable at best and incredibly disingenuous at worst.