I think the main problem is Sweden would extraditing him to the US
From the ruling of Judge Howard Riddle in Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority:
> If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also.
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.
Remember that there was little/no international support for the US starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the US did so anyhow and since nobody has invaded the US for doing so, it seems that the US has "gotten away with it" at least so far as international law is concerned.
Finally it doesn't have to be that the Swedes desperately want Assange to be extradited, but merely that someone from the US is pressuring them to keep reminding the world that "Assange isn't a good guy" from time to time.
I'm not saying Assange is innocent, either. I honestly don't know. But to think that the US has an interest in hindering him, well, that's not unreasonable at all.
Would Ecuador go to war over such an act ? No way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and...
E.g. some years back, Swedish police black bagged two political asylum seekers from Egypt and illegally handed them over to the CIA, knowing the CIA would fly them to Egypt and hand them over to Mubarak. Sweden asked for a "promise" they'd not be tortured, which they promptly were of course. The entire operation violated by Swedish law and international law, was condemned by the UN and Sweden has been ordered to pay restitution over it.
Yet a few years later, Swedish military police uncovered that the CIA were still conducting illegal rendition flights via Sweden, with the cooperation of Swedish ground staff. We know about the latter only because Wikileaks years later reported on how the US ambassador to Sweden was called in to the Swedish foreign ministry over the matter. We don't know whether there have been further "issues" because it has never been investigated thoroughly by anyone that we know of, and certainly not publicly.
Clearly some Swedes - including police officers - were ok with blatantly ignoring Swedish law in the first matter, and some were willing to continue cooperating with the CIA illegally even after the massive uproar of the first revelations, and after it was clear political authorities at least in public opposed it, and at the same time as other parts of the Swedish government were prepared to take action against it.
And what documented history?
Probably the same one that permitted US lobby organizations to order an unconstitutional raid on tpb.
As for what US law, I don't know. Mind you, I also don't know what US laws the Guantanamo Bay detainees were taken under. Or what laws the US does it's cough "extraordinary rendition" or cough "enhanced interrogation techniques" under. Doesn't mean the US doesn't do those things, simply because I can't cite those laws.
Hell, here in Australia we're about to be screwed over by the Trans-Pacific Partnership - and even people who are really interested in that treaty can't get access to it. It's being made in secret with the US calling the tune, yet we're all going to have to live by it. So what if I can't name a law? There are laws, and then there are what countries manage to get away with. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not. In the case in the link above, Sweden quite happily ignored it's own legal processes for extradition.
And the rest of this is nothing to do with the price of eggs. The case here is that something has happened to get the UK to extradite to Sweden in order for Sweden to extradite to the US. That would all have to happen through legal means. Extraordinary rendition to Guantanamo is 1. such a wildly disproportionate and unpopular move that it is just not going to happen. 2. not any easier from Sweden
That would all have to happen through legal means
Again, if you read my link, you'd see that for the two men involved, Sweden ignored it's legal process.
If you're going to debunk a link, it helps to read it first.
Edit: there their they're //sigh
Not only that, but the treatment of the prisoners during the handover was a clear violation of Swedish law.
The Swedish government and their agents carried out a criminal act. Nobody were punished for it.
Foreign agents carried out criminal acts on Swedish soil. Nobody were punished for it.
Years later it was uncovered the CIA were still carrying out illegal rendition flights via Swedish airports with the support of Swedish staff. Nobody were punished for it.
Why should anyone trust that this government, or elements within it, will not violate international law again?
We only know about the continued CIA flights and the Swedish governments half-hearted secret protests in the first place due to Wikileaks.
Political prisoners? No, that's absolute bullshit.
Stop parroting other people without checking your facts.
The UK has extradited multiple people to the US. Your narrative is incorrect.
The UK has extradited multiple people to the US. Your narrative is incorrect.
Speaking of incorrect narrative, how about you report on how many of those were political in nature (yes, some were), rather than simply assuming all extraditions are innately unjust? Extradition in itself isn't immoral - people do still commit crimes, and you shouldn't get away with literal murder just by hopping a border.
To be crass and frank; they were asylum-seekers. Total no-names in comparison to Assange. They were also not political prisoners in any capacity in Sweden (edit: in hindsight maybe you meant "political refugees"?). And it's disputable whether the course of action of extraditing them was an incorrect one, although the methods used were certainly questionable.
Also note that both of the men involved were each rewarded financial reparation afterwards, and one of them received a permanent residence permit.
At the time the case received a lot of attention, and there were multiple criminal investigations into it. It's not like no one cared when this surfaced.
Anyway, what about my other charge, where you were implying that all extraditions from the UK to the US were political in nature? It's a bit rich to accuse others of not fact-checking when you're playing fast and loose with the truth yourself.