extradited person. However, there is no sign that the United Kingdom would not agree to an onwards extradition. On the contrary, the United Kingdom has refused to provide such a guarantee. The person who would make such a decision, U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May (who campaigns to scrap the U.K. Human Rights Act) has authorized extraditions of U.K. citizens Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer. Both men are causes celebres with overwhelming popular, media, and parliamentary support. In the case of Mr. Assange, the Home Secretary would simply state that it is a "matter for Sweden and the United States" and that the U.K. "will not interfere" - exactly as Australia has done in its response here. Mr. Assange's ability to campaign against the Home Secretary, should he be detained in Sweden, would be marginal. Since Mr. Assange is not a U.K. citizen minimal domestic pressure would be placed on the Home Secretary - certainly much less than in the McKinnon and O'Dwyer cases. There is every indication that the Home Secretary would facilitate, not stop, Mr. Assange's extradition to the United States. The European Court of Human Rights cannot be expected to be of assistance. In relation to the risks and inhumane conditions present in the U.S. SuperMAX/SAMS facilities Mr. Assange would be immediately incarcerated in, this year the ECHR permitted the extradition of six persons from the U.K. to the United States facing just such conditions. While Sweden is not meant to permit extradition for 'political offences', it has