Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but this doesn't seem to be a compelling example. He's in an extradition hearing for something that happened 9 years ago, and the article says "the extradition process could take years".
This hearing is the beginning of the process, and unnecessary delay at this point would be unsettling (leaving him wondering whether the other shoe will ever drop).
The fact that the very first hearing took place only weeks after Britain got him in custody doesn’t say anything about how quickly other hearings will take place, when a decision will be made, etc. It’s really silly to call for everyone to slow down at this point.
Not necessarily. Climate change is arguably destroying the U.S. through droughts, hurricanes, floods, etc. But you don't see the U.S. react so swiftly.
It's really when the interests of those in power that are affected, that the "state acts so quickly."
Folks will argue how much and when, but the US state is still a democracy and people elected people who oppose action on climate change... it makes sense.
Last time I was arrested it took 2 years of going to court once every 2 months, saying that there is no movement on my case before it was straightened out. This all for a very minor offense that I happily plead guilty to after the lawyers had sorted everything out. I could have just as easily plead guilty and paid all my fees on day one if the legal system in the US actually functioned.
The right to a speedy trial is held by the individual, not the state. It is not a safeguard to liberty if proceedings move so quickly that the individual cannot mount and adequate defense. This is particularly true of extradition, a situation where there is no room to correct an improper decision acted upon.