So why the rape case in Sweden and what has that to do with the US wanting his extradition?
Lengthy copy and paste for which I apologise but to link to the correct bit would take some doing.
Both the UK and Sweden refuse to guarantee that they will not extradite Julian Assange to the United States. Political and military extraditions are expressly prohibited under the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States, so this refusal is unusual. Moreover, it is likely that the US will request extradition on charges that are not overtly political (see below).
Shortly after issuing the EAW and Interpol Red Notice to 188 countries, the prosecutor Marianne Ny originally stated that extradition to the United States was ?out of the question? (05 December 2010) - but her statements were later redacted (see Prosecution).
The Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has adopted several strategies in order to lessen the pressure on him to provide assurances that Julian Assange will not be extradited to the United States:
- Reinfeldt claims that the decision to extradite Julian Assange is up to the courts, not the executive.
This is false. Sweden?s extradition treaty with the United States explicitly prohibits political and military extraditions. The final decision lies in the hands of the executive, who can block an extradition if it believes that political/military motivations underlie the extradition order. However, it it difficult to prove the underlying motivations of an extradition order. The US is likely to issue an order under charges that are not overtly political (see below).
It is likely that the United States will decide to charge Julian Assange with a number of offences (whether or not in conjunction with espionage) that are seemingly not political offences. The US Department of Justice has broadened its attack to include a possible indictment under the federal computer crimes statute, which it would argue was a non-political offence. Sweden is likely to consent to such an extradition given its close relationship with the US and the argument that the offences he is being sought for are not political in nature.
It is difficult for an individual to prove that the underlying motivations for an extradition are political, especially where the requesting state is a close political ally, which is the case of the United States both for Sweden and for the UK. Swedish troops are under NATO-US command in Afghanistan. Sweden was one of the first countries to send fighter jets to Libya at the request of the US and, in June, the Swedish parliament voted to send marines to Libya together with more fighter jets (See Political Interference).
- Reinfeldt claims that it is not up to Sweden, but up to the UK, whether or not Julian Assange is extradited to the United States.
Sweden is shifting attention away from the fact that the final decision of whether to extradite Julian Assange to the United States or to block it is an executive decision.
Under EU law, Sweden should only initiate Julian Assange?s onward extradition if and when the UK gives its agreement, but the UK has little incentive to block an extradition order if Sweden does not take the step to do so first. Moreover, legal commentators in the UK have stated that it is likely that the UK would consent to Julian Assange?s extradition from Sweden (this is likely to raise less criticism and mobilisation if Julian Assange is not physically under UK custody).
Sweden has in the recent past violated international treaties in relation to surrendering foreign nationals into US custody to be interrogated and tortured (case of extraordinary rendition, Agiza v. Sweden at the European Court of Human Rights). Furthermore, Amnesty International and the UN Committee against Torture criticised Sweden because it rendered two refugees to the CIA who were then tortured under the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak. (A documentary with the testimony of tortured refugees who had been granted asylum and then rendered to the CIA by Sweden was aired on Swedish television on 5 October 2011.
Diplomatic assurances that the person extradited will not be subjected to torture or other inhumane and degrading treatment are not a sufficient guarantee to prevent Julian Assange from suffering such treatment while in US custody, or to realize a fair trial in the United States, given the politicization of the allegations against him.
The UK and Swedish governments can choose to allege that Julian Assange is not wanted for political offences, and will not interfere with a judicial decision (despite the fact that this ?judicial decision? would be taken by the secret grand jury in Virginia where there is no judge or defence counsel).
Given that Julian Assange is neither a citizen nor permanent resident in Sweden or the UK, these countries have little incentive to afford him the type of protection they would afford one of their own citizens or permanent residents. Moreover, it is safe to assume that both the UK and Swedish government have come under pressure to comply with the United States? upcoming request for Julian Assange?s extradition (these pressures by the US government proved effective in the extra-judicial and arbitrary denial of service by Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, Western Union & Bank of America of WikiLeaks donations).