I don’t think we are far apart on this, and I’m not sure how much sympathy I have with Assange, who has after all, put himself in this position. But I do think the charges against him in Sweden look a bit flaky, and I don’t think the UK government would normally be spending £millions each year guarding the embassy on the basis of these allegations alone.

Peter, thanks for the comment. I don’t think my reaction is unusual: folks who know much more about this area of law than I do (e.g., Matthew Happold, Julian Ku) are also critical, though Liora Lazarus is more sympathetic to the opinion.

I think Mr. Assange’s fears are probably fantasies, and certainly his fears about torture, waterboarding, etc. I personally question whether the United States will ever charge him with a crime. But in any event, I don’t know why we should dismiss or discount the Swedish rape charge, nor do I think we can expect Sweden to make the kind of commitments Assange says he wants in advance of any request for extradition or even any indictment from the United States. It takes a special kind of chutzpah for someone who skipped bail after having the full measure of due process in England and then holed himself up in a foreign embassy to be making demands, but you may feel differently.

When I heard on the news that the UN had found Julian Assange to have been ‘arbitrarily imprisoned’, whatever that means, I was a bit surprised, for the same reasons you cite. I had thought that you may be able to cast some light as to how they arrived at that decision, and it’s maybe strangely reassuring that you are also bemused by it.

That said, in the underlying case I think Mr Assange has a point. He claims to be in fear that if he allows himself to be extradited to Sweden, that he will quickly find himself in the states on charges relating to wikileaks. I think he is correct. The charges against him in Sweden look a bit suspect, and I think they are a means to an end.