Under what law is Assange facing extradition

Article 4 of the US-UK extradition treaty demands that no prisoner can be extradited for "relative" political offences based on political motivations.

Since the media is ignoring it here is a link to Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 and extracted for convenience.

With Assange having been in exile in the Ecuadorean embassy, having Grand Jury Sealed indictments, being held in jail beyond his original "crime" of bail jumping, no reasonable person can argue he is not a political prisoner.

Since the media is ignoring it here is a link to Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 

There is an extract of Article 4 in the corresponding column for reference.

Article 4 of the US-UK extradition treaty demands that no prisoner can be extradited for "relative" political offences based on political motivations.

Assange is essentially facing charges in the US for exposing misconduct and the killing of civilians by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The charges are politically motivated and represent an attack on whistleblowers. This is best illustrated by the timing. The alleged crimes are reported to have taken place in 2010.

This means that the crimes were known to the government when Chelsea Manning went to a pretrial hearing in the military courts in 2011. However, the indictment was not unsealed until now. Why the long delay? If there was sufficient evidence, why wouldn't the charges have been brought against Assange in 2011 or 2010?

The US government is deliberately trying to dress it up as a breaking into a computer charge, perhaps to avoid the “political offence” clause in the extradition agreement, but make no mistake, Assange’s charges are political.

If the UK accedes to the United State’s government, it would be a strong statement on how the UK views whistleblowers. It would also set a dangerous precedent for other truth-seekers and journalists using the UK as a safe haven from repressive governments who wish to have them extradited on politically motivated charges.

Article 4 sets forth bases for the denial of extradition.

As is customary in extradition treaties, paragraph 1 provides that extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested constitutes a political offense.

Article 4(2) specifies seven categories of offenses that shall not be considered to be political offenses:

1. an offense for which both Parties have the obligation pursuant to a multilateral international agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit the case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution;
2. a murder or other violent crime against the person of a Head of State of one of the Parties, or of a member of the Head of State's family;
3. murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding, or inflicting grievous bodily harm;
4. an offense involving kidnaping, abduction, or any form of unlawful detention, including the taking of a hostage;
5. placing or using, or threatening the placement or use of, an explosive, incendiary, or destructive device or firearm capable of endangering life, of causing grievous bodily harm, or of causing substantial property damage;
6. possession of an explosive, incendiary, or destructive device capable of endangering life, of causing grievous bodily harm, or of causing substantial property damage; and
7. an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any of the foregoing offenses.

Article 4(3) requires that, notwithstanding the terms of paragraph 2, extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request is politically motivated. In the United States, the executive branch is the competent authority for the purposes of the Article. Under the 1985 supplementary treaty, the judicial branch has the authority to consider whether an extradition request is motivated by a desire to punish the person sought on account of race, religion, nationality, or political opinions, or if the person sought would be subject to unfair treatment in UK courts or prisons after extradition.

Like all other modern extradition treaties, the new Treaty grants the executive branch rather than the judiciary the authority to determine whether a request is politically motivated.

Article 4(4) provides that the competent authority of the Requested State may also refuse extradition for offenses under military law that are not offenses under ordinary criminal law (e.g., desertion). In the United States, the executive branch is the competent authority for the purposes of the Article.