It's not exactly the same thing, but similar things happen in private industry. If an employee of a company posted a trade secret the employee had agreed to keep secret, that's legally actionable, while others sharing it without any agreement with the company generally can't be sued.
That said, IANAL. If you need legal advise, I'm not it :-).
He did however skip bail, and rightly paid for that.
I was disappointed by the high court's view to allow extradition, especially given the one-sided approach to extradition that US takes with its citizens, but it was hardly surprising given how far up the US's ass the UK is. Of course a decade ago it was all "I don't want to go to Sweden because I'll be extradited", despite that easily being the case from the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
The UK at least follows their own legal system for such matters.
Hell nowadays the UK would not just allow, but probably pay the US to take asylum seekers somewhere else
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/iraq-war-tor...
That particular rendition didn't rely on UK refueling the planes; the CIA's planes don't need to be refueled from somewhere as close as Sweden. And it was a minor scandal when it came out that the UK even allowed rendition flight refueling on one of it's territories in the Indian ocean. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.f...
> Seems a very tenuous link to me - the idea that the US would illegally kidnap someone from the streets in Sweden but not do the same thing in the UK
Then you should be able to produce an example of this happening. The big difference is that for western Europe, the US gov generally requires that the host country cooperates with renditions. Sweden cooperates with renditions, the UK requires the normal extradition process.