> Is there any substantive difference in extradition
> proceedings from the UK or Sweden?
It is equally illegal in Sweden to extradite people to countries where they could face the death penalty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-a...
> Where did you get this disinformation?
http://wlcentral.org/node/2671
> Why did you trust it enough to post it
> under your name, John Millikin?
"Julian Assange's mother Christine recently tweeted the following facts about extraditions involving the US, the UK, Sweden, and Australia."
So basically, Julian's mom told you so. Okay...
Sweden has been breaking international law for some time now, at the USA's behest. As the UN panel noted there is no reason to think Sweden might uphold their own diplomatic assurances as they have been caught violating them repeatedly.
I don't understand in which way I am "flippantly rude" when pointing this out.
This is the text if the actual Swedish extradition law from the government web site. It clearly states on Page 3, section 12, point 3 that someone can not be extradited if they are to face the death penalty. The Swedes would have to get assurances from the US that this wasn't the case to extradite him.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death...
Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by inprisonment [...]
Clearly he is guilty of that.
"...for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy."
tl;dr - the death penalty is only applicable if you expose our spies and they are killed, or if you communicate certain kinds of information. (Those listed are usually classified "Top Secret", which to my knowledge, nothing published by Wikileaks has been.)
Still there were some claims that some names were exposed in the documents. I can imagine that somebody from all the exposed names got killed in one way or another. Would that be enough then? If something like that existed, Manning is then the first to be sentenced to death.
As the UN panel notes this is in violation of the very treaty you cite. This is precisely the fear and it is clear the fear is reasonable and well founded in fact. The UN findings are unequivocal.
If they're willing to go that far I really don't know why they don't just let him go to Equador and have him assassinated there, it would be a whole load easier.