> Is there any substantive difference in extradition
> proceedings from the UK or Sweden?
The UK will not extradite to the US if the accused faces the death penalty. Sweden will. Assange's lawyers argue that the US's apparent desire for a Swedish extradition indicates that US prosecutors want a conviction that will lead to his execution.
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.
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.
What can the US charge him for that is punishable by death? The most I think they can get is conspiracy to commit espionage, which is not, according to the below list, a capital offense.
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 [...]
You're hiding highly relevant text behind 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.)
You are right, no "top secret" documents were published.
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.
People have tried, vigorous tried, to find a single case where a exposed name got killed in relation to the documents. So far, not a single researcher has found one. What they have found is that there is very few names like that, the most of the named people was dead before the documents was published.
I may be operating under a misconception, but can't you only be charged with treason if you are a citizen of that country? Otherwise surely he should be a prisoner of war, or if not covered by that convention an unarmed combatant.
This is espionage, not treason. Both are capital offenses, though it's not clear that it's actually legal to execute someone for these crimes in the US due to Kennedy v. Louisiana. (That ruling specifically refuses to comment on crimes against the state, but I'm sure the next person that gets a death sentence for one of these crimes will be quick to ask the court for a review.)
The UK does not, but Sweden has violated said treaties. Here is an article on the subject, where several men were extradited from Sweden at the USA's behest, to Egypt where they were tortured: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...
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.
It would have to violate both Swedish law (which expressly forbids extradition if the person is to face the death penalty) and European law.
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.
Those people were not extradited. If you want to talk about illegal renderings then the UK is much more complicit in those than Sweden and it makes no sense that he would be safer in the UK than in Sweden.
