That's not extradition, that's extraordinary rendition, an extrajudicial process. It's always illegal. And while it's a worrying thing, it would be very odd if that was an option on the table for Assange, if only because they could have done it before, and can still do it just as easily from the UK, or actual Ecuadorian soil for that matter, than from Sweden. Assange is too much of a high profile target for renditioning to do anything but backfire.
That's what bothers me about the "Sweden will send him to the US" argument.
I don't get why he's concerned about it, AND(at the same time) is in the UK, who, out of any country in the world, is quite possibly the MOST likely to agree to a US extradition request.
Not really. Britain's extradition agreement with the US is tougher than Sweden's. Britain can not extradite to the US where there's the possibility of a death sentence. The charges the US want to introduce would most likely come under the espionage act and he could face the death penalty.
Plus, public support for Assange is greater in the UK than in Sweden. Even if the request were successful, which is unlikely, it would take almost a decade, if not longer.
Oh, that's right, I forgot about the European Convention on Human Rights, I was too distracted by Sweden's consitent breaking of the rules by performing extraordinary renditions on Americas behalf.
But yeah, your probably right, there's no way Sweden will break the rules this time.
Extradition and rendition are two completely different things. If the CIA wants to rendition Assange, it'll just happen. It's an extrajudicial process more akin to kidnapping than anything else. If anything, the arrest warrant would just get in the way. It's hard to disappear people out of western European jails--easier to just grab him off the street, be it in London or Quito.
If the US wants Assange extradited, they would have to play by the rules. And the rules don't help at all if Assange is in Sweden.
