The problem with that approach is that he expects be extradited to the US as soon as he gets to Sweden. Oh and you might call it nitpicking, but he's not convicted of rape yet, let alone charged with it.

I still don't understand why Sweden is considered more likely to extradite to the US than Britain is...

In the UK an judge may make an independent determination that his 'crimes' are of a political nature and therefore not extraditable. In Sweden, there is a newish form of extradition, temporary surrender, where it is thought the decision can effectively be made by politicians instead of judges. Is he better off with a judge or a politician?

Sweden has recent form for taking legal shortcuts in this area.

I don't think many consider Sweden to be that. Maybe he is just trying to escape his accusations in Sweden?

No, they've offered several times to allow Swedish officials to conduct whatever formalities they need to in the UK. They've refused.

Sweden also has a history of dropping prisoners off at the airport where they get met by people who are DEFINITELY NOT CIA agents and disappeared.

He won't be in jail for rape.

From all evidence it is clear that he will be extradited to the US where he just might face the death penalty.

There's a lot of speculation about this but I haven't seen actual evidence. Our extradition laws with the UK are actually stronger than with Sweden so why wait for him to be in Sweden?

> There's a lot of speculation about this but I haven't seen actual evidence.

Because there is none, it is a matter of legal record that it is MUCH easier for the US to extradite somebody from the UK than from Sweden.

But that simple fact (which Assange himself acknowledged in the past!) is rather inconvenient when you are trying to build some conspiracy theory.

And, on exactly what charges would he receive the death penalty? The death penalty under Federal charges is not exactly something that's handed out like candy. Since 1963 only three people have been given the death penalty at the federal level, and all were murderers.

He doesn't need to get a death penalty, it's enough if they'll give him the same treatment they gave Manning prior to his trial [1]. Enough to make any sane person go mad.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/...

Manning falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so by definition Assange could not be treated the same way.

Manning who Wikileaks dropped like a hot potato, let's not forget.

Well they are trying to hit Assange with the Espionage Act, though the exact punishment for that hasn't readily turned up in my searches. If they could nail him with treason, he would certainly be up for the death penalty, however, since Assange is not a US citizen and therefore doesn't owe allegiance to the US, I don't think he would be able to be charged with it (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381)

The US federal government retains the legal right to the death penalty for cases of espionage.

Show me one example, post 1960, of such a punishment being sought.

Further, no such charges have been brought in the US, and more importantly, even several prosecutors have claimed such a charge will be difficult to produce, given the protections we provide the press here.

Finally, this whole "fear of death," is completely manufactured. He will get a much fairer shake than all of the Chinese dissidents whose names he released unredacted.

Yeh, to be honest life imprisonment probably wouldn't be all that more pleasant than a death sentence.

Also the US has, in recent years, demonstrated that its protections are primarily intended for their own citizens. Apparently it's OK to strip foreigners of any such rights, if they are perceived as enemies and this is deemed convenient.

There is no evidence for that.

> From all evidence it is clear that he will be extradited to the US where he just might face the death penalty.

What evidence? So far all I've seen produced is speculation based on quotes from political figures that lack the power to make this happen.