DaveO wrote:So is the implication here the courts looked for any possible way to extradite him which would imply political pressure was behind the judgement?
It's worth noting that Wikileaks recently published e-mails by the private intelligence gathering Stratfor group (a sort of "shadow" CIA with all kinds of murky links to arms manufacturers, oil companies etc.) claiming a sealed indictment has been drawn up against Assange. This effectively means that once the US gets its hands on him he'll be thrown in some hole somewhere and never seen again.
I should point out that Strafor is dirty as well as unconstitutional. By farming out intelligence work to private companies the US effectively bypasses due process. And it's getting worse. Obama has clamped down on leaks like no other President threatening all kinds of horrors to anyone not toeing the line. Convictions have skyrocketed and civil rights activists everywhere are blowing their stacks.
British laws are incredibly difficult even for the US to crack. There are all kinds of legal protections to prevent miscarriages of justice and an army of top lawyers who are prepared to fight civil rights abuses purely on conscience.
But Sweden is an altogether different proposition. Extradition to the US is far easier and you can bet Hillary Clinton will be wielding all the power she can muster to expedite Assange's transfer once we kick him out.
It's tragic really. After all, despite the US's protestations there's no evidence that any of Wikileaks' publications (which are no different to leaks newspapers publish around the world each and every day ) have resulted in anything more than political embarrassment. But I guess that's dangerous enough.
