States regularly treat citizens differently based on a host of factors. The real question is what are the acceptable grounds and degrees for that treatment. In some areas there is wider latitude than others.
Perhaps the failure here isn't Scalia's, but others in the court, and yours? This decisions over the last two days may someday be regarded a the "Dred Scott" decisions of this era.
Have you ever considered taking in a wider range of views?
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
Would you be so dishonest as to deny the Judeo-Christian worldview and values of the Founders? Given the anti-Christian bigotry you so often spew I'm going to say more than likely yes.
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have found an inalienable right to buggery in the Constitution, but it seems agreeable to you. "Gay marriage" would have been anathema. But again that is no obstacle for you to freely invent and overlook as desired.
By the way, did you notice how slavery was removed as an institution from the United States? I seem to recall there was a vote or two. The same thing with the banning and reinstatement of alcohol. Inconvenient facts here, just move along and don't look.
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
There has existed since before the founding of the American Republic a modern legal classification of married which conveys upon you certain rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is overthrow that.
In truth this has little to do with the 14th Amendment, that is just a convenient vehicle for the goal of creating a new institution of "gay marriage." Gay people had exactly the same rights as everyone else before that, but they wanted something different. Now they have it, and more battles will come of it. Gay marriage has hardly existed and now gay divorce is the trend. Let the celebrations begin! Gay divorce is here in all 50 states! Equality at last!
There is no religious exemption.
You take exception to religion, which is often the source of defects in your reasoning.
The same society that you complain about is the same society that just made this decision, and in a number of cases it was made by politicians. I can understand why you would question it. It is a questionable outcome.
It's easy to guess who the villains will be in fiction written by Leftists. Of course it gets more than a little pathetic when the "villainy" is fabricated.
I understand your confusion since truth generally has no meaning for you. For the rest of us that there is a difference. Not counting slaves as whole people for the purposes of political representation reduced the South's representation in the House which was definitely a disadvantage. It would also reduce their say in the election of the President since the Electoral College is based on Congressional representation. That is also a disadvantage, especially with the rise of the abolitionist party known as the Republicans.
To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
Courts in the UK looked at many questions, including would the allegation against Assange constitute rape in the UK, and did the prosecutor have the authority to issue the EAW. Here are extracts from the magistrate's ruling:
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard:...
2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during the process. These decisions are taken by a court.
....I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority..... I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by a prosecutor.... Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”....
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
----------
No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved.
No, I don't. I just think the question should be answered in court if the allegations are strong enough to support a trial.
If you are thoughtful, you may see some irony in this:
The rape allegation is the most serious and if proven in court could lead to up to four years in jail.
The lawyer for the two women stood by the allegations and criticised Assange for not coming back to be questioned.
"It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture... It's not about that here," Claes Borgstrom told Reuters.
"He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd."
At the same time, Assange might not have that much to worry about, said
So you don't contest that there were three prosecutors, two of which thought that the charges should be investigated, and now the attempt is actually being made? That's a start.
Many people will jettison logic and equality before the law to defend Assange.
Sweden has a long history of independence with regard to the US and the Soviet Union (and now Russia). Calling Sweden a "lapdog" of the United States is ludicrous. Sweden declined US requests to extradite deserters during and after Vietnam, for example. Almost 1,000 Americans fled there after desertion.
The few (what was it, 2?) that Sweden surrendered to the US for rendition we believed to be involved in terrorism, they were not known to be innocent. (A lie of yours?) Sweden is not inclined to support further renditions, and Assange isn't believed to be involved with terrorism. Or are you prepared to make a revelation about previously unknown links between Assange and ISIS or al Qaeda?
Assange is wanted in Sweden for crimes committed in Sweden. Suggestions that it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden where both the UK and Sweden would have to agree instead of just extraditing him from the UK where only the UK has to agree are sheer fantasy and a flimsy excuse for Assange not facing justice. It is as simple as that.
Although I may have gotten a detail wrong, you've got an even bigger one wrong. Go back and read your link. There aren't two prosecutors involved here, there are at least three. (Hmm, do you think all three prosecutors were women?) Two of those three prosecutors wanted to change Assange. Doesn't that seem to indicate that isn't an unreasonable position? Speaking of bias, why do you think that third prosecutor wanted to drop changes that the other two wanted to pursue? "Who got to her" should be your question.
I doubt that most Windows users will ever hear of it. The vulnerability will probably be around for years to come providing years of entertainment for security professionals and identity theft resolution departments.
They must want to arrest him since there is an arrest warrant out for him. How can they arrest him if they can't take control of him? That is nonsense. Questioning following arrest is typical, not unusual. Assange had a chance for questioning without arrest, but that is gone now. If Assange is surrendered for arrest he will probably be in custody until this is cleared up, which probably means a trial and maybe prison. Now he is a bail jumper and nobody will take a chance on him doing it again. And once Sweden is done with him he will have to face UK justice for violating his bail and becoming a fugitive. Assange will probably send several more years in that embassy to try to run out the rest of the charges against him instead of face them.
So in your view my advocating that Julian Assange be treated like anyone else and that he face the allegations of sexual assault against him is "foaming at the mouth"? If that is the case you are probably coming from a fringe perspective, and I would like to know why you think that Assange shouldn't face his accusers like anyone else in a Western nation (including Japan)?
I'm also happy to bring some facts to the discussion that are often overlooked, or denied. Up thread here AmiMoJo is engaging in distortion, painting a false picture for political reasons. He backs Assange just like he has soft pedaled North Korea's record, that of one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth that has starved hundreds of thousands or millions to maintain its huge army and build nuclear weapons, saying in essence that they aren't so bad. I see you ridiculing religion, and asking people for evidence of their faith. Is it too much to ask that we stick to the facts and accurately discuss them on other topics? Or is Assange a secular demi-god beyond questioning and the standards of mortal men? Where is your skepticism here?
I expect the reason that many of my submissions are accepted is because I try to submit interesting stories that would appeal to the Slashdot community. If you don't like what I submit, why don't you submit more?
Here is what Ecuador's Foreign Ministry said, and noted in the article: "Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement."
Does that sound like they have received a request? Yes. Do the Swedes say they submitted a request? Yes. So why the holdup? What is the weighty decision to be made here? If Ecuador was really disposed towards cooperation after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy why is there a delay? Do you think it is really a "paperwork" problem? No. This is all political theater on Assange's behalf by Ecuador. I doubt there was every any intention of allowing it. And given the level of sophistication on the part of those involved, they are unlikely to come right out and say "No." There will always be just one more problem, some papers not in order, unless they suddenly fold and allow it to avoid bigger diplomatic problems. We'll see.
The most likely scenario is that they simply run out the clock and Assange never has to answer for the accusations of rape.
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested....... read the rest
The other "possibility" is that you and AmiMoJo have got it wrong. What do you think the odds are? A simple reading of the story shows AmiMoJo has it wrong based on what he is claiming.
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange..... More
They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly. Assange isn't a head of state, he is a fugitive from allegations of rape that should be answered in the criminal justice system like any other.
The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU. In short, the country that wants a person extradited needs to hand in a formal request to the Ministry of Justice.
Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA.
Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country.
It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.
Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
Power of Attorney.
States regularly treat citizens differently based on a host of factors. The real question is what are the acceptable grounds and degrees for that treatment. In some areas there is wider latitude than others.
Perhaps the failure here isn't Scalia's, but others in the court, and yours? This decisions over the last two days may someday be regarded a the "Dred Scott" decisions of this era.
Have you ever considered taking in a wider range of views?
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
Would you be so dishonest as to deny the Judeo-Christian worldview and values of the Founders? Given the anti-Christian bigotry you so often spew I'm going to say more than likely yes.
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have found an inalienable right to buggery in the Constitution, but it seems agreeable to you. "Gay marriage" would have been anathema. But again that is no obstacle for you to freely invent and overlook as desired.
By the way, did you notice how slavery was removed as an institution from the United States? I seem to recall there was a vote or two. The same thing with the banning and reinstatement of alcohol. Inconvenient facts here, just move along and don't look.
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
There has existed since before the founding of the American Republic a modern legal classification of married which conveys upon you certain rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is overthrow that.
In truth this has little to do with the 14th Amendment, that is just a convenient vehicle for the goal of creating a new institution of "gay marriage." Gay people had exactly the same rights as everyone else before that, but they wanted something different. Now they have it, and more battles will come of it. Gay marriage has hardly existed and now gay divorce is the trend. Let the celebrations begin! Gay divorce is here in all 50 states! Equality at last!
There is no religious exemption.
You take exception to religion, which is often the source of defects in your reasoning.
The same society that you complain about is the same society that just made this decision, and in a number of cases it was made by politicians. I can understand why you would question it. It is a questionable outcome.
It's easy to guess who the villains will be in fiction written by Leftists. Of course it gets more than a little pathetic when the "villainy" is fabricated.
Pot, meet kettle.
I understand your confusion since truth generally has no meaning for you. For the rest of us that there is a difference. Not counting slaves as whole people for the purposes of political representation reduced the South's representation in the House which was definitely a disadvantage. It would also reduce their say in the election of the President since the Electoral College is based on Congressional representation. That is also a disadvantage, especially with the rise of the abolitionist party known as the Republicans.
But the side effect was that the concept of slavery was BUILT INTO the Constitution.
I think it is better to state that the Constitution was written such that it both acknowledges the existence of slavery while disadvantaging it.
Quoting from your link:
To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
Where do you think that is going on?
Courts in the UK looked at many questions, including would the allegation against Assange constitute rape in the UK, and did the prosecutor have the authority to issue the EAW. Here are extracts from the magistrate's ruling:
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
(Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard: ...
2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during the process. These decisions are taken by a court.
....I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority. .... I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by a prosecutor. ... Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”. ...
Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?
The Magistrates’ Court ruled (emphasis added):
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
----------
No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved.
No, I don't. I just think the question should be answered in court if the allegations are strong enough to support a trial.
If you are thoughtful, you may see some irony in this:
Sweden Angered By Julian Assange Fight, Says It Won't Extradite Him If He Faces Death Penalty
The rape allegation is the most serious and if proven in court could lead to up to four years in jail.
The lawyer for the two women stood by the allegations and criticised Assange for not coming back to be questioned.
"It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture ... It's not about that here," Claes Borgstrom told Reuters.
"He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd."
At the same time, Assange might not have that much to worry about, said
So you don't contest that there were three prosecutors, two of which thought that the charges should be investigated, and now the attempt is actually being made? That's a start.
Many people will jettison logic and equality before the law to defend Assange.
Sweden has a long history of independence with regard to the US and the Soviet Union (and now Russia). Calling Sweden a "lapdog" of the United States is ludicrous. Sweden declined US requests to extradite deserters during and after Vietnam, for example. Almost 1,000 Americans fled there after desertion.
The few (what was it, 2?) that Sweden surrendered to the US for rendition we believed to be involved in terrorism, they were not known to be innocent. (A lie of yours?) Sweden is not inclined to support further renditions, and Assange isn't believed to be involved with terrorism. Or are you prepared to make a revelation about previously unknown links between Assange and ISIS or al Qaeda?
Assange is wanted in Sweden for crimes committed in Sweden. Suggestions that it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden where both the UK and Sweden would have to agree instead of just extraditing him from the UK where only the UK has to agree are sheer fantasy and a flimsy excuse for Assange not facing justice. It is as simple as that.
Sweden Angered By Julian Assange Fight, Says It Won't Extradite Him If He Faces Death Penalty
I think it could also be highly useful when disasters strike, like a tornado or hurricane taking out a town.
Although I may have gotten a detail wrong, you've got an even bigger one wrong. Go back and read your link. There aren't two prosecutors involved here, there are at least three. (Hmm, do you think all three prosecutors were women?) Two of those three prosecutors wanted to change Assange. Doesn't that seem to indicate that isn't an unreasonable position? Speaking of bias, why do you think that third prosecutor wanted to drop changes that the other two wanted to pursue? "Who got to her" should be your question.
I doubt that most Windows users will ever hear of it. The vulnerability will probably be around for years to come providing years of entertainment for security professionals and identity theft resolution departments.
They must want to arrest him since there is an arrest warrant out for him. How can they arrest him if they can't take control of him? That is nonsense. Questioning following arrest is typical, not unusual. Assange had a chance for questioning without arrest, but that is gone now. If Assange is surrendered for arrest he will probably be in custody until this is cleared up, which probably means a trial and maybe prison. Now he is a bail jumper and nobody will take a chance on him doing it again. And once Sweden is done with him he will have to face UK justice for violating his bail and becoming a fugitive. Assange will probably send several more years in that embassy to try to run out the rest of the charges against him instead of face them.
So in your view my advocating that Julian Assange be treated like anyone else and that he face the allegations of sexual assault against him is "foaming at the mouth"? If that is the case you are probably coming from a fringe perspective, and I would like to know why you think that Assange shouldn't face his accusers like anyone else in a Western nation (including Japan)?
I'm also happy to bring some facts to the discussion that are often overlooked, or denied. Up thread here AmiMoJo is engaging in distortion, painting a false picture for political reasons. He backs Assange just like he has soft pedaled North Korea's record, that of one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth that has starved hundreds of thousands or millions to maintain its huge army and build nuclear weapons, saying in essence that they aren't so bad. I see you ridiculing religion, and asking people for evidence of their faith. Is it too much to ask that we stick to the facts and accurately discuss them on other topics? Or is Assange a secular demi-god beyond questioning and the standards of mortal men? Where is your skepticism here?
I expect the reason that many of my submissions are accepted is because I try to submit interesting stories that would appeal to the Slashdot community. If you don't like what I submit, why don't you submit more?
Obviously at this point it isn't a bug, its a "feature." The only question is why did Google decide to push this negative feature?
Which if that applies to black children? I hadn't noticed that black children were a big target of the IRS.
Here you go:
Sweden rejects Assange appeal to drop arrest warrant
A Swedish court has rejected an appeal by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange against his arrest warrant for alleged sex offences.
The warrant was issued by Sweden in 2010 on two allegations of sexual assault.
Mr Assange denies the assault claims and has been living at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since June 2012.
Swedish investigators are now likely to proceed with plans to travel to London to question Mr Assange.
The Supreme Court said it saw "no reason to lift the arrest warrant", since moves to question Mr Assange in London were already in place. ......
Here is what Ecuador's Foreign Ministry said, and noted in the article: "Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement."
Does that sound like they have received a request? Yes. Do the Swedes say they submitted a request? Yes. So why the holdup? What is the weighty decision to be made here? If Ecuador was really disposed towards cooperation after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy why is there a delay? Do you think it is really a "paperwork" problem? No. This is all political theater on Assange's behalf by Ecuador. I doubt there was every any intention of allowing it. And given the level of sophistication on the part of those involved, they are unlikely to come right out and say "No." There will always be just one more problem, some papers not in order, unless they suddenly fold and allow it to avoid bigger diplomatic problems. We'll see.
The most likely scenario is that they simply run out the clock and Assange never has to answer for the accusations of rape.
Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.
Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.
Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?
That's not really going to work.
Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested. ...... read the rest
The other "possibility" is that you and AmiMoJo have got it wrong. What do you think the odds are? A simple reading of the story shows AmiMoJo has it wrong based on what he is claiming.
Unfortunately you've got some things wrong there. I suggest you read this, and follow the link to read the rest of that item.
Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange. .... More
The post you are replying to isn't mine, and your facts aren't in order. Is that a habit of yours?
They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly. Assange isn't a head of state, he is a fugitive from allegations of rape that should be answered in the criminal justice system like any other.
Can Assange be extradited from Sweden to the USA?
The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU. In short, the country that wants a person extradited needs to hand in a formal request to the Ministry of Justice.
Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA.
Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country.
Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”
It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.
(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey for further detail on this.)
Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.
(See Mark Klamberg’s blog for further information on this.)
You've fallen for a line of nonsense.