Not just the US, the members of the Security council and those in possession of veto essentially make the UN a two tiered interest group. The UN is largely dependent on a few nations to operate, and consequently those countries, including the security council, will veto in national interests, irrespective of the international situation involved. The US will never abandon Israel to the UN, because its a client state, exactly the same reason why the Russians and French were intransent over the second gulf war resolutions.

Essentially, the UN is a very high minded, well meant institution thats largely a strong arm means of a few western nations to get their own way.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

How on earth can the original country that extradites be in control of the second country's extradition procedures?

Where does this happen?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'd largely agree with you here, though I'd argue that the last sentence is perhaps too strong.

Syria proves that the West don't always get their way.

I'd say your first paragraph was more an accurate description of an imperfect system....Though client state is perhaps a tad strong, though meaningful in a practical sense.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It's complicated, Stuk.

I read a summary of the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States and the key points are:

1. Political and military extraditions are prohibited.
2. The Swedish executive have the ultimate right to block any extradition they feel violates the above in charge or even in motivation.

As I have previously mentioned, Sweden are remaining entirely on the fence about it. In fact, they actually have previous for ignoring the treaty entirely. "In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which rendered them immediately to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them". [Link]

So the United States would have to request extradition on charges that are not deemed political or military first of all, which would be difficult... if Sweden actually followed it's own treaty. Which it clearly doesn't.

Stirling likes to think that the law is black and white on these issues. Not only is it grey, it's also fvcking mess. Each of the states involved here has previous for picking and choosing which laws and treaties to follow when it suits them diplomatically.

WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Any extradition is a f***ing mess as far as I can tell!

Thing is he has certainly broken laws, both US and international, that he could be extradited on without it being deemed for military or political reasons. He's admitted what he's done, or been a part of at the very least, and revelled in the notoriety.

I don't blame Sweden for not showing their hand, nor their declining any of his requests prior to or since winning the judgement. He's tried to dictate matters to them, and us for that matter by skipping bail and with his subsequent balcony speeches, when due process has been followed.

Optimistic as ever

You're tying yourself in knots here. You previously accused Assange of taking a pick and choose mentality to international law. So a state can bend international law whenever they choose to, but an individual subject to the same, loose, subjective law or treaty is not allowed an interpretation?

There is no maybe, maybe not on whether Sweden broke its own treaty on extradition. [Link] Guardian bias aside, it's a very well documented case of Extraordinary Rendition and the dismissal of international law as the basis for extradition.

WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.