Reply #13: Well, it's very clearly stated in the treaties, polly7.

[sabrina 1]

His lawyers I am sure, have considered it and I expect we will see objections from Human Rights groups also as soon as the process to extradite him begins.

Both Sweden and Britain are signatories of those treaties.

Ironically the Wikileaks documents themselves have exposed the efforts made by the U.S. government, including by the president himself, to stop the prosecution in Spain of the U.S. architects of the 'laws' permitting torture. So, no matter what words we hear that 'we don't torture', the actions of this government prove otherwise.

The other grounds on which they can defend against extradition are if someone is being pursued by any country for 'political reasons'. Also clearly stated in the treaties.

It will be hugely embarrassing to this country if they try to extradite him on some trumped up charges. They've had months to charge him, but clearly cannot find a crime although they are, reportedly, trying desperately hard to find one. If you have to work that hard to find a crime, you have no standing and look like a third world dictatorship.

The U.S. would do better not to attract the world's attention to their lawless behavior and torture policies which have NOT stopped, as we know from reports around the world, including 'extraordinary rendition'.

And, thanks to big mouth legislators and former elected officials, it is clear that he would not be safe in this country. Calls for his assassination by people like Huckabee and Palin et al, have actually strengthened the case against extradition. His lawyers CAN now point to the threats coming from elected officials to harm him.

What the U.S. would be better off doing now, is to fix what caused this, first the lack of security. AND investigate the crimes exposed by the documents.

Going after the messenger is the worst possible strategy for a country already sinking fast in world opinion and losing daily the trust of people around the globe.