Slashdot Mirror

If the US wanted to extradite him anyways, why work through Sweden which isn't a strong ally instead of the UK...

Multiple aspects of the argument "It would be easier from the UK" are discussed here: https://justice4assange.com/ex... (Disclaimer: Not exactly an unbiased source)

You have no idea how extradition works, if you are extradited to one country, and that country tries to extradite you to another, the first country is required to have an additional extradition hearing unless that move was an established pre-condition.

The Swedish wouldn't be "extraditing" him to the USA, they'd be "lending" him as part of the ongoing investigations into Wikileaks.

See: https://justice4assange.com/us...

What are the chances of the USA ever giving him back after Sweden drops its charges? Slim/none.

What would the UK be willing/able to do about it? Probably nothing. Nobody's job is on the line (they're all following the law) so, hey, bad luck Julian.

This interview in London is just ass-covering by Sweden to keep the case alive. Don't expect anything to come of it.

You would think so. But apparently Assange enjoys broad public support in the UK, putting the government in a bit of a tough spot. As bad as they want to suck Obama cock, they're already under mounting public criticism just for spending so much to guard the Ecuadorian Embassy. If they openly extradited him the U.S., they would likely face riots in the streets.

Even extraditing him to Sweden had most UK politicians all but pissing in their trousers in cowardly fear. If they weren't such pathetic U.S. lapdogs, they would likely just let him go to Ecuador and be done with the whole mess.

Do you have sources to back up what you say and are they biased? It all sounds legit but it conflicts with this (which I realise is going to be heavily biased) http://justice4assange.com/Sex...

Have Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrants for other people for crimes at this level and type or are they just targeting Julian Assange? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be tried in court, just that the Swedish justice system going the extra mile is politically motivated.

I have looked for statistics on EAWs but can not find any with crime type detail.

Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.

To respond to your specific comments:

The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.

I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.

There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.

My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.

Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).

I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.

If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.

The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.

The problem is that the guy in that video apparently hasn't read the actual treaty. Nor, it seems, have the people who wrote this page on Justice4Assange which has the video embedded and even quotes the relevant passage of the treaty.

VI. If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States. [emphasis added]

Yes, there is a temporary surrender provision, but it only applies if the extradition has already been approved, i.e. if the Swedish (and English, and European) courts have approved it.

I'm really surprised how many highly rated comments claim extradition from the UK would be easier. Extradition from Sweden to the US would almost certainly happen. Take for example this fact:

Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy extradition procedures.

How could anyone reasonably expect him to willfully submit to that? It seems highly likely he would end up rotting in a US jail for life, unheard and unseen.

Very sad that someone can be granted political asylum and *still* Sweden refuses to do a simple interview. Speaks volumes for the real intent of Sweden (hint: nothing to do with justice, all about locking people away for embarrassing those in power and bringing some long needed transparency into the public realm.)

another guy accused of rape

Julian Assange has not been charged of anything by any authority of any kind. He is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual misconduct Source

leaves the country when his lawyer tells him that he is wanted for questioning

Before leaving the country he consulted with the judge, who decided there was nothing holding him there and he could leave Swedish soil.

caught in Britain

Not caught, he turned himself to the police after it became clear that the illegal (or at least illegitimate) Interpol red notice was not going away. This, in the hope of resolving the matter.

then disappearing into some embassy

He did not disappear, he sought asylum. That's quite a difference.

in breach of his bail conditions

Because it was the only choice he had left to avoid being ultimately handed over to a country where he would be tortured or executed, thus breaching the Geneva Conventions

which _does_ make him a criminal in the UK

He has not been charged nor convicted of any crime by any government yet, not Sweden, not the USA, not even the UK as far as I can tell. (prove me otherwise)

On the other hand, Augusto Pinochet, charged by Spain for the killing of 3000 Chilean people, and torturing 30 000 more, including the raping of political prisoners with trained dogs, was not only not extradited by the UK but often drank tea with Margaret Tacher


This just goes to show you how much lies we are being fed by governments and medias alike. It's fairly easy to hear officials make the same mistakes as you did.
Not because they are ignorant. Then know very well the details of this case. They're not stupid. They just choose to deliberately lie.

You can agree or disagree with the importance of what Wikileaks does, and the importance of what Assange and Manning do for our society, but that doesn't make your claims any less WRONG

I am expressly not listing any elements involving the validity of the allegations themselves, but only such ones that may influence Assange that are outside the scope of the alleged crimes. There is more to be said (see links in the text), but here are the main points of swedish behaviour which are likely to trouble Assange:

• Preliminary investigation: failures to follow procedure and the probable biais of an investigating officer due to personal acquaintance with one of the defendants unfortunately put the investigation itself in a bad light.
• No case: the investigation was opened, closed, then re-opened on request of the lawyer representing the two women. The investigators themselves did not consider the evidence sufficient for court.
• Proportionality: the fact that Assange has already been held in house arrest for over 500 days and faces at least short imprisonment in Sweden prior to any trial raises serious proportionality concerns. Given this result, I believe the argument of Assange's lawyers in court, that the use of an European Arrest Warrant simply in order to further an investigation before any actual prosecution takes place is disproportionate, to be valid. However, opionions are divided on this issue.
• Questioning in the UK: there is no legal problem whatsoever for the prosecutor to do this outside of Sweden, and indeed Sweden has questioned defendants or suspects abroad in the past. This is a decision that is entirely up to the prosecutor, and that decision has not satisfactorily been explained (audio interview with Swedish prosecution authority). Only recently, one justification has been given, and it is essentially one of prestige, which is a rather poor explanation given the fears expressed by Assange and the lack of any non-extradition guarantees by the Swedish government. I would be very curious to know what the real justification was before the case blew up.
• Connections: as mentioned in previous post.
• Expected future behaviour: opinions expressed in the press by Swedish journalists and intellectuals have become virulent, to say the least. Along with the media, public opinion has swayed in disfavor of Assange, giving cause for Assange to fear a fair trial, should it ever come to one. This case would likely collapse before any trial, according to Ove Bring, professor Emeritus of the Swedish national defence college (see previous link). However, with media and public opinion and concerns of prestige being as they are, this has become less likely. Interestingly, similar reasons may be given to argue that an actual extradition from Sweden to the US has become even less probable. It would go down very poorly in the court of global, public opinion should Sweden do so after months of trying to get him to return to Sweden for completely unrelated reasons. Personally, I believe Assange's fears have alway also centered around receiving a fair trial. With time, this fear has probably become increasingly real.

I am expressly not listing any elements involving the validity of the allegations themselves, but only such ones that may influence Assange that are outside the scope of the alleged crimes. There is more to be said (see links in the text), but here are the main points of swedish behaviour which are likely to trouble Assange:

• Preliminary investigation: failures to follow procedure and the probable biais of an investigating officer due to personal acquaintance with one of the defendants unfortunately put the investigation itself in a bad light.
• No case: the investigation was opened, closed, then re-opened on request of the lawyer representing the two women. The investigators themselves did not consider the evidence sufficient for court.
• Proportionality: the fact that Assange has already been held in house arrest for over 500 days and faces at least short imprisonment in Sweden prior to any trial raises serious proportionality concerns. Given this result, I believe the argument of Assange's lawyers in court, that the use of an European Arrest Warrant simply in order to further an investigation before any actual prosecution takes place is disproportionate, to be valid. However, opionions are divided on this issue.
• Questioning in the UK: there is no legal problem whatsoever for the prosecutor to do this outside of Sweden, and indeed Sweden has questioned defendants or suspects abroad in the past. This is a decision that is entirely up to the prosecutor, and that decision has not satisfactorily been explained (audio interview with Swedish prosecution authority). Only recently, one justification has been given, and it is essentially one of prestige, which is a rather poor explanation given the fears expressed by Assange and the lack of any non-extradition guarantees by the Swedish government. I would be very curious to know what the real justification was before the case blew up.
• Connections: as mentioned in previous post.
• Expected future behaviour: opinions expressed in the press by Swedish journalists and intellectuals have become virulent, to say the least. Along with the media, public opinion has swayed in disfavor of Assange, giving cause for Assange to fear a fair trial, should it ever come to one. This case would likely collapse before any trial, according to Ove Bring, professor Emeritus of the Swedish national defence college (see previous link). However, with media and public opinion and concerns of prestige being as they are, this has become less likely. Interestingly, similar reasons may be given to argue that an actual extradition from Sweden to the US has become even less probable. It would go down very poorly in the court of global, public opinion should Sweden do so after months of trying to get him to return to Sweden for completely unrelated reasons. Personally, I believe Assange's fears have alway also centered around receiving a fair trial. With time, this fear has probably become increasingly real.

Sigh - Rei, you're doing it again. Projecting your own experiences onto another. As I imagine you're aware, as a matter of public record:

1. - SW (the more serious "rape" alleg) has since stated she was "half asleep" after making love with Assange a couple of hours previously (for 3rd time). As opposed to your description that makes sound like some kind of bedroom invader.
2. - Immediately after penetration while they were cuddling in bed, asked if Assange was wearing a condom, then agreed continue when he answered no. They'd also only half used a condom the previous time they made love.
3. - SW was the aggressor in initiating the relationship according to her own statement and witnesses in police report, seeking Assange out, paying for his train ticket & becoming upset when he didn't want to have sex. They spent all day together courting, kissing in cinema etc, before going back hers.
4. - Police report witness statements say they initially had no interest in reporting the issue to the police, but instead wanted to force an STD test. Second complainant AA said to a friend she filed hers "as support" for SWs, as police said it would present a stronger case.
5. - The interviews were carried out by an active Rad Fem officer personal friend of AA's who breached virtually every rule in book while taking statements. Including allowing AA in the interview room during SW's interview, not tape recording either interview, amending the interviews later (on instruction of her superiors) and pressuring SW to continue. SW was so distraught when she heard the police had issued an arrest warrant that she didn't finish or sign the interview.
6. - The original Chief Prosecutor in the case Eva Finné, acting in the spotlight of frenzied media reports of "double rape" after Assange's name was leaked and after reviewing the evidence in detail, channelled the arrest warrant in Aug 2010 and gave statement to press that "I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". She also stated he was no longer wanted by police (thus free to leave Sweden), but she would continue to investigate lesser charges.
7. - Whilst SW has arguably legitimate cause for complaint (lack of condom), AA's self described "support" charges are simply nonsense. Her statement clearly identifies consent at all times and her only allegation of any seriousness - alleged sabotaging of a condom - appears heavily dubious as the "evidence" she presented of it contains ZERO Assange DNA. AA also famously threw a party for Assange the evening after the supposed incidents, posted tweets about how much she was enjoying his company, allowed him share her room for week after, deleted evidence online after the event, etc etc.
8. - After outrage grew in the US over the famous Wikileaks diplomatic cables release at that time, a second Prosecutor Ny & RF lawyer Borgström were parachuted in, who both just happened to have active political careers in pushing Radical Feminist legislation in Sweden - e.g., support for a proposed tax on all males to counteract their sins. The original prosecutor Finné lodged a filing demanding an explanation for this unusual change and asking on what grounds the Gov were overruling her earlier findings.
9. - The EAW that the UK courts based their findings on *demonstrably* exaggerates the accusations far beyond those in the official SW & AA statements. E.g., they suggest violence/force (no mention in statements), they fail to mention the complainants both acknowledge the encounters were consensual, they suggest lack of condom use with AA when one was used but split, they describe SW as asleep etc - see the J4A Allegations page for a direct comparison between the EAW and what actually reported.

Now even given all of the above evidence that this sort of case would NEVER normally warrant an Interpol Red Notice and EAW - hell, most times not even cut and dried rape cases do - most Assange suppo

a) Nothing about this 'investigation' passes any known smell test. No matter how you sniff it, it smells of rat.

Some 5 courts and at least 10 judges have looked into this "investigation" and found nothing rat-like about it. But maybe you have a better nose than them (or more facts).

b) Yes, it's much, much easier for the USA to grab him from Sweden than the UK. Once he's there they can 'borrow' him with hardly any legal process.

Ok, after about half an hour of research, I think I've managed to find where the "temporary surrender" thing comes from (sorry, but I don't trust justice4assange.com to be entirely independent and unbiased). It seems to originate with Article VI of the Supplementary convention on extradition between Sweden and the US, signed in 1983, TIAS 10812. Apparently it's too old to be published anywhere official, but there's a copy here.

Article VI states:

If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or

(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.

Right, so what does this mean? Yes, Sweden can temporarily surrender him to the US for the purpose of prosecution. However, note the first 6 words; "If the extradition request is granted...". I'm not an international lawyer, but to me that means that the US must first apply for extradition, thus jumping through all the various hoops (both in Sweden and the UK, including challenges in courts) before they can even start looking into temporary surrender.

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why this process (being part of extradition, and an action carried out by the State, i.e. Sweden) wouldn't be subject to the ECHR, in particular, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and any others Assange might want to throw at the case. So using "temporary surrender" would actually be *harder* than normal extradition, as there is that extra step on top of everything else.

Thirdly, and the main reason to dismiss nearly all of his claims: if this is a problem, why isn't Assange arguing it in court? If he has, it must have been dismissed by the Court. On this point, we go to the initial extradition ruling, final major paragraph beginning "There was at one stage ..." Actually, I might as well just post the whole paragraph here as I seem to be pasting lots anyway... (emphasis mine):

There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition

OK, short versions:

a) Nothing about this 'investigation' passes any known smell test. No matter how you sniff it, it smells of rat.

b) Yes, it's much, much easier for the USA to grab him from Sweden than the UK. Once he's there they can 'borrow' him with hardly any legal process.

The Swedish prosecutors *are* able to question Assange on UK soil. Look under "Marianne Ny’s misleading statements about legality of questioning abroad" on http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html . Her statements about the suposed illegality of questioning abroad have been redacted.

Oh man.. here we go again.


Let me answer your questions:

1) It would, as a matter of fact, be easier for the US to extradite from Sweden. There is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests.
Read this and this.
2) See above links.
3) Ecuador is NOT shielding Assange from prosecution from Sweden BUT from extradition and persecution by the US. Assange is willing to go to Sweden tomorrow to answer any Swedish charges if they can assure him he will not be handed to the Americans. They refuse to provide such an assurance. Look, Assange is not some ordinary mugger. He has done some significant things that have riled up the powers that be. If the suspect in your example was anything like Assange, I would be OK with it.

.

Oh man.. here we go again.


Let me answer your questions:

1) It would, as a matter of fact, be easier for the US to extradite from Sweden. There is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests.
Read this and this.
2) See above links.
3) Ecuador is NOT shielding Assange from prosecution from Sweden BUT from extradition and persecution by the US. Assange is willing to go to Sweden tomorrow to answer any Swedish charges if they can assure him he will not be handed to the Americans. They refuse to provide such an assurance. Look, Assange is not some ordinary mugger. He has done some significant things that have riled up the powers that be. If the suspect in your example was anything like Assange, I would be OK with it.

.

It is you who has drunk the kool-aid.

Tell us this: Why doesn't Sweden give Assange a guarantee that they will NOT extradite him to the USA. Assange's lawyers and even the Equadorians have requested such assurances and have been denied every time.

As to your claim that it would be easier for the US to extradite from the UK, please read this.

actually there seems to be intent

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.

Under what law? I don't see how you can charge him when he's not a US citizen and wasn't in charge of classified information. I guess foreign countries can charge anyone in the USA when something leaks to a US journalist?

29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.

It would almost certainly be easier to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden.

Nope.

If he is afraid of extradition to the US, he would have a much better chance in Sweden then the UK.

Nope.

It's actually much easier for the US to get him if he's in Sweden: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

In Sweden all they need is a flimsy excuse and they can 'borrow' him for questioning. Want to bet if they'll give him back or not...?

He's being charged in Sweden, not in the US, and he is almost certainly not going to face US charges.

So...why doesn't he go to Sweden, plead guilty, pay the 750 Euro fine for his "crime" and walk free?

Oh, wait, there's that whole USA-Sweden thing where the Swedes can transfer him to the USA at the drop of a hat: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

Given the UK's extradition treaty with the US basically hands over our sovereign rights to the US with ridiculously low standards for extradition why would it make any sense to extradite him to Sweden first?

Because extradition from the UK requires you to be accused of a crime and the USA can't come up with one.

Extradition from Sweden doesn't require a crime, they can send you to the USA for 'questioning' (with zero paperwork, too - double win!)

Full details here: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence!

See here:

The UK's extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender ('conditional release') clause. The UK's judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied.

and here:

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.

In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence!

See here:

The UK's extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender ('conditional release') clause. The UK's judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied.

and here:

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.

Seem like he stayed there until they said it was ok to go. "Assange has made himself available to the Swedish prosecution from the beginning: he stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks waiting to be interrogated, and left Sweden after asking permission to do so from the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny (which she granted)." http://justice4assange.com/Investigation.html

He left the country before he could be questioned in person.

Horseshit.

He answered all their questions then asked for permission to leave. They said yes.

After that somebody in the USA remembered their "Temporary surrender" agreement with Sweden and suddenly there was a new prosecutor and a whole lot of new questions that needed to be asked. ...and extradition for questioning over a possible 750 Euro fine? Puh-lease. I'm sure he'd have mailed them a cheque on request, guilty or not.

Nevertheless, I don't see why he's avoiding extradition to Sweden

It's probably something to do with the special "Temporary Surrender" agreement Sweden has with the USA.

See: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

Once he's on Swedish soil he can theoretically be transferred to the USA on almost any pretext and with very little due process.

Sweden is not a lap dog of the United States.

In this particular case, yes it is. Sweden has a weird agreement with the USA to "temporarily" transfer people in their custody to the USA.

See here: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

(Read the part headed "Temporary surrender")

Impossible, sweden cannot extradite him without UK consent. (illegal to extradite after you been extradited from different country in european law)

Nope. Sweden has a special treaty with the USA which allows them to hand him over with almost no legal process: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

So does the UK...

Not like Sweden. Sweden has an arrangement with the USA which allows them to temporarily transfer somebody in their custody to the USA for questioning on charges not related to crimes committed in Sweden. This "temporary surrender" bypasses the normal legal processes needed for extradition.

Cites: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

Bottom line: The easiest way for the USA needs to get their hands on him is to get him into Sweden. After that he can vanish. And it's all perfectly legal.

It's on the Internet:

"1) Julian Assange has not been charged with any offense. 2) Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy ’extradition’ procedures."

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

This page has a lot of arguments and info on the topic, mind you the source isn't terribly neutral:

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html