Assume he were tried and convicted of the alleged crimes. What penalty would he be facing?
This is one of the reasons I believe that whether or not he is guilty, he actually himself strongly believe there's something fishy going on.
If he believed nothing else was going on, then it would make very little sense for him to avoid the charges: Chances of being convicted in cases like these are tiny, and if convicted, the punishment in Sweden would be very light. He's likely to suffer more cooped up in that embassy than if convicted in Sweden.
Of course, if he genuinely believes something is fishy does not mean there has to be. And even if there is something fishy, it doesn't need to be US involvement - it could just as well be the prosecutor wanting to push her own agenda.
Treason is a crime against one's own country; the US cannot try him for treason, nor can Sweden.
Let's not exaggerate here.
He would, no doubt, be given a lengthy federal trial, likely found guilty and serve Federal prison time, while receiving moral and legal aid from many corners, particularly organizations concerned with civil rights, whistleblowing, and journalism. His conviction might even be eventually overturned.
Indefinite detention works (in that it has not been stopped) because those who are imprisoned without due process have few mainstream defenders - plenty of people object to the methods, but are ho-hum on the actual people involved. Assange's detention without due process would be a political nightmare for the administration at very least.
Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process in the US" is going to be productive, but the nature of indefinite detention is, in a positive sense, not a normative one, interesting.
I have found that most discussions you take part in are not terribly productive in the first place - though they never lack for postcount, so I'm not going to be too hard on myself here. That said, I didn't say there was no such thing as due process in the US, so your summary of my post misses the mark. I believe Assange should not have any expectation of due process, and that his treatment by US authorities, while perhaps not as brutal as that of prisoners in Guantanamo, would not be considered fair.
Nevertheless I found rogerhoward's response interesting, making - for me at least - the signal-to-noise ratio temporarily high enough that my previous post was worth it. But, now here we are. In the future, maybe if you don't find a line of discussion productive, you can try not posting.
I addressed your stupid jab at me. As for the other stuff, yes I'm aware how US authorities justify their actions. Insightful stuff.
At any rate, rather than 'not posting' perhaps you could try tapering off a bit. Start with single sentences, then a 'heh' or an 'I agree', and then finally work your way up to just not posting in discussions you claim aren't productive.
For more, see "The Guantanamo cases": Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Bush, Hamdan v. Bush, and Boumediene v. Bush.
This is all irrelevent to Assange, as rogerhoward points out.
If the USA were to declare he is wanted only for a crime that carries the death penalty, it would be great for Assange. He could walk around the EU without any risk of extradition.
They insisted it had stopped. Only Wikileaks documents revealed the US ambassador was called in years later because Swedish military intelligence had just caught CIA, assisted by Swedish ground crew, carrying out further illegal rendition flights via Swedish airports.
I don't that's a likely scenario for Assange - he's too well known, and Europe and Sweden would "have to" cause a massive stink if he was illegally abducted that way - it'd be a diplomatic nightmare. But in general, if concerned about being handed over to the US, Sweden would be pretty low on the list of countries I'd want to go to.