"4) The laws are Sweden's laws. If you don't agree with them, I suggest you don't go there."
While I agree with you I seem to recall that the whole event was a little bit different. The women who filed the charges also dropped them at one point, only to be followed by the prosecutor re-opening the whole case again. Doesn't that sound a little bit peculiar, especially for something which is supposed to be a rather minor offense in Sweden?
From what I read the whole case could simply end up with Assange having to cough up a big fine ($ 1000,- - $ 1500,- ?) after which he could be declared an unwanted person and would have to leave the country. Within that context I can somewhat understand why anyone with the history of Assange would be very weary when the whole event takes rather strange turns (dropping charges, re-instating them).
Another thing which seems rather odd to me; the main reason for the extradition is because Sweden wants to interview Assange. I have to wonder; why couldn't these interviews have taken place in the Swedish embassy in London ? Especially if you keep in mind that when put into context this is all about a minor offence. One which, I mentioned it already, even got dropped at one point.
And quite frankly, when you take a look at the Wikipedia's article on extraordinary or irregular renditions you'll notice that Sweden has had issues before (Wikipedia link). In short; basically allowing the US to take people into custody without so much as follow official protocol (also known as the law).
According to that same article all the UK ever had to deal with were two US "rendition flights" which had stopped on UK territory.
So I can quite well understand why this would make Assange jumpy and unwilling to go to Sweden.