What makes you think making up charges and constantly threatening to destroy you are not extremely stressful. He has a family too that he's been unable to see properly for a long while.

Is his only current crime skipping bail on charges he believed were fake?

Clearly, facing deportation to the US is problematic for a number of reasons, mostly that it's impossible for even Snowden to get a fair trial there, let alone an Australian citizen.

Would that we all had the luxury of the ability to skip bail on charges we believed were fake, yeah?

We'd also likely not have had the charges leveled upon us in the first place.

As long as we play ball enough.

Skipping bail on charges he believe were fake is a crime, yes. If we was so sure of the charges being fake then he should have let them judge him.

That might make sense if one believed they were accused of fake charges by a private person, and are to be judged by an impartial legal system.

It makes no sense if one believes that they were accused of fake charges based on political pressure and are to be judged on a rigged legal system.

It would be like if J.E.Hoover had his eyes on you, had his police build some BS charges, and made sure (whether by police planting evidence, fake testimonies, etc or by having his judge pals on the case too) you'll be convicted.

Would you take your chances to have the case judged?

> If we was so sure of the charges being fake then he should have let them judge him.

Sure, because trumped up charges are symptomatic of a working justice system.

...except Assange would have been transferred to America to stand trial over Wikileaks before he would even have a chance to stand trial over the rape accusations.

I don't think there was an extradition request from the US, was there? Only one from Sweden. And it's very unlikely that Sweden would extradite him to the US for this. They value the free press, but take rape very seriously.

The plan was to get him to the US all along, unless you want to believe it was a coincidence that Sweden kept up the request for ten years but dropped it the minute it got in the way of extradition to the US.

As to why Sweden, who knows why they thought that would be preferable. Maybe just to smear his reputation a bit, to soften the protest at the treatment they want to give him? Very successful if so.

But either way, you're talking about the people who forced down the Bolivian president's plane because they thought Snowden might be hiding in it. When they say "the law only matters when the outcome doesn't", this would be an example of a case where the outcome (stop Wikileaks) mattered.

He know sthat there is little justice in the US system. It's not like he's going to a cushy Scandinavian prison. He will be going to max security federal prison with hardened criminals who will likely beat him to death or shank him.

He didn't fear the charges, he feared the extradition - and that's exactly what happened - Sweden dropped the charges anyway, but he ended-up being extradited.

Maybe he didn't trust the judge/court to fairly judge him?

It is still a choice he could make (and did), which is more than many have.

It is great that people are speaking up about the conditions under which people are punished and the no-win games that put them there. I only wish people could do so when it isn't some high-profile person.

many people claim that they are only skipping bail because they believe the charges are fake, but do they really believe that?

Even if they're lying, they don't deserve the treatment Assange received for that crime.

> Is his only current crime skipping bail on charges he believed were fake?

No, he's already served the time for that. He's held strictly for extradition by now.

"are not extremely stressful."

That's not torture.

> The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, visited Assange and described his treatment as psychological torture.

I read the articles. As I noted I disagree. If he didn't divulge something(s) that also added to his assessment I can't account for that.

Do you have a source to disprove or challenge the UN's definition of torture?

Solitary confinement is often used during war. That Assange is incarcerated in a civilian prison doesn't necessarily diminish or change the effectiveness and impact.

An American dismissing a UN special rapport about torture. ... I really can't fathom why people would go through such extreme lengths to avoid getting extradited there ... /s

He is currently held in solitary confinement, with 1 hour outside his cell per day. That is torture.

And the years before he spent time in an embassy on his own free will, the solitary confinement is new.

Melzer: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool."

In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation to be "arbitrary detention":

> In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy.

> The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.

> The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

He fled justice to hide in an embassy. He was fully free to leave, and should have faced justice from the start. Fugitives from justice do not enjoy pleasant conditions - that's not a strike against liberty, but a necessary condition of the rule of law.

I find it remarkable that so many here feel they are in a better position to assess whether Assange's human rights have been violated than experts on the topic at the UN who've spent considerable time looking into his situation.

Appealing to authority is a lot less persuasive when it's a non-binding report from a minor working group. I read their account. It was poorly argued and inconsistent. Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?

Then make your case on your disagreements with that report, not on your (frivolous) assumption that he would have had a fair trial.

The report assumes a priori that an extradition threat was real, now we see Trump's DOJ did eventually file one, but he was hiding in the Embassy for years on a false pretext of an imaginary extradition to avoid facing rape charges. The rights of the rape victims to see justice weren't addressed or considered. The question of whether Assange was fleeing justice for rape wasn't ever seriously addressed but just waved away.

The moment Assange was dragged out of the embassy, there was an extradition request from the United States. Assange was clearly correct about what would happen, and all the people who laughed off the threat of extradition to the US look pretty silly now.

The only indictment that there is evidence for is from 2017 under the Trump DoJ, 5 years after he fled justice to the embassy. Assange made up a story about a fictional sealed indictment when he fled justice. He just did such a poor job fleeing justice that he wound up with a sealed indictment for criminal behavior he engaged in after he'd moved into the embassy.

A grand jury was convened at the latest in 2011,[1] before Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikil...

When we all think of kangaroo courts, I know the first place we think of is... checks notes Sweden.

In the context of all the other times when the US got reported for human rights abuse, I think it's pretty damn persuasive. Just because the US ignores all those special UN reports, doesn't mean the rest of the world does...

It's funny that when it comes to Assange, suddenly the UN group's findings become "non-binding". Did you read what they had to say about it?

> The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.

> The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

Journalist John Pilger also made the point that Britain and Sweden participated in and have previously supported this UN group:

> The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.

> Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-un...

You write "Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?"

What makes you think that Britain and Sweden's refusal to accept the outcome has anything to do with the evidence presented? The UN group found against Britain and Sweden, and they didn't like that outcome. Isn't that a likely explanation?

I find it remarkable that so many here feel they are in a better position to make judgements on the validity of an indictment than the justice systems involved.

Here I thought legal factfinding was the purview of a courtroom, rather than the court of public opinion.

And even use phrases like "facing justice" in the backdrop of war crimes that cost thousands of lives. No words...

Free to leave to where? Solitary confinement in a UK prison for publishing embarrassing information? Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with you there.

Put scare quotes around "justice" and your comment will be more accurate.

The later parts are all about the time in prison Assange is currently under, which, granted, is probably not the best of times.

But if you run from the law, why should Assange or a human rights expert expect to be handled like in a 5 star hotel?

Um it's only a "5 star hotel" if you compare it to what would happen to him after extradition to the US.

Well, Idunno, maybe I think I know the truth?

Truth isn't a universally objective concept outside of math.

Why are you being so rude?

Do you spend the other 23 hours in an 8x5 room with cement walls and nothing but a bed and a toilet?

23 hours involuntary solitary confinement is legit confirmed psychological torture. Self-inflicting that is either self-harm or else you are doing meaningful activities indoors and it's not the same thing at all.

But you have a choice to spend less than an hour outside.

Are you spending the other 23 hours sleeping or standing? Because that’s what solitary confinement is. You get to do nothing but sleep, walk around, or use the toilet.

> prosecution in a free country

The free country responsible for the Guantanamo secret prison? We are talking about the same one?

We're talking about the same country(s).

I still consider the US, Sweeden, and the UK "free countries".

Well I don't know about Sweden but the UK is falling into mass surveillance of its own population, and the US is already there and on top of that engages in wars without any form of Congress approval for a while now, and jails people for non-violent drug possession still. I guess Freedom is relative.

As long as "free" is firmly inside the quotation marks, sure.

Assange has been under conditions a little worse than "threat of prosecution."

If only there was some sort of independent expert to assess the situation for us ;)

It was the threat of being deported to a country that has the death penalty and routinely torchers people for years without trial; If you honestly can't imagine being stressed about that then you are just not trying.

The "free country" that has the highest incarceration rate, and one of the worst prison systems in the western world?

That's just your world view and western conditioning. I don't know what you mean by "free country" or what that has to do with state actors persecuting another political actor. Help me understand. I don't have the conditioning to read past the slogans and just understand why certain nations are pure.

Actually it's just 98% free. The rest is in jail or prison.

As far as "free countries" go, it's really the worst to end up.

Did you seriously forget all the UN reports about human rights issues in the US? Yeah the US ignores them, but the rest of the world knows it. It's really pretty bad.

> I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of "torture" a bit questionable.

Yeah, it's funny how HN typically goes evidence-free where pet politics is concerned.

I'll eat my hat if someone on here can name a single precedent of someone being tortured in the U.S. before being tried for a crime similar to what Assange would be accused of.

Edit: and citations, please!

> similar to what assange would be accused of

That's oddly specific, but still be careful what you're asking for. "Police torture suspect" gives a lot of results, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge

There's a good chance some of those 200 cases were rape cases.

Then there is also the torture of terrorism suspects, if you wish to take that angle since Assange has repeatedly been labeled a terrorist.

Here's two more Wikipedia articles that may be interesting to you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_State...

Especially interesting may be the "Domestic Torture in Modern Times" section if you wish to focus on what happened domestically.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techn...

Always worth a read.

All you have to do is do a google search for people dying of health conditions because the cops ignored them, people lying on the ground beaten half to death, out cold, while cops yell "stop resisting arrest!", guys on the ground shot for not crawling up to the cops right, the list goes on and on.

Examples of people being tortured in the US are plenty. It all depends on what you mean by "similar to what Assange would be accused of". He was accused of rape, which is one of the few crimes that the US takes much more lightly than Sweden does.

Especially prison rape! The US takes it so lightly they even have a cute euphemism for it, "to pick up the soap", which allows you to lightly joke about sexual abuse punishment fantasies in polite company!

I've even seen joking references to prison rape in children's shows, which really makes me wonder what's wrong with people.

Why the qualifier?

What measure of proof do you require?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

Given that he is not a US citizen, one could make the argument that he was engaged in cyber warfare against the US, thus legally classified as an enemy combatant, subject to special magistrate court and incarcerate-able at an offshore detention facility. Rules on detainee handling there are more lax and sentencing has no guidelines at least no published ones. I would consider that possible path of prosecution and even the threat of it to be torture.

Eugene Debs

It occurs to me that "land of the free" can be taken two possible ways:

- "the field of the sheep" - the field only contains sheep

- "the wool of the sheep" - the wool only belongs to the sheep, not the cows, pigs, goats etc.

In the same way, America belongs to some very free people, and the rest are conned into touting that from under whatever thumb they happen to be.

Which free country?

What is a “free country” in your definition?

"free country"... oxymoron of the century by now...

What would you define a "free country" as?

One that doesn't suspend all freedoms and human rights when the magical word "terrorism" is invoked.

Have an example of such a country?

I like ones with full suffrage for all citizens of age of majority, including criminals. Like Canada.

Canada has a rather restrictive version of freedom of speech.

Sure, but at least it doesn't allow slavery or disenfranchisement.

You used the term first, so probably you should define it, and then you can explain why it's "questionable" for threat of prosecution to ever be considered torture in such a place, and then you can explain why the country threatening to prosecute Assange meets that definition.

Among other things, one would certainly have to exclude any country which engages in the mass collection and permanent storage of all of its citizens' communications.

What if the population was ok with that / didn't care?

The whole population?

Freedom is freedom for minority rights and opinions to not be quashed by the majority. Thus the term "the tyranny of the majority"

A majority can "not care" about systematic racial injustice and other inequities. The consent of the majority doesn't make the system "free".

I guess China is a shining beacon of freedom for it's people too then.

Then I'd ask those same people to hand over their credentials to all their accounts since their data, privacy, and property, seem to matter little to them.

You could post this exact same question about operating concentration camps.

They would be wrong.

That's the risk of democracy.

The alternatives have proven to involve a great deal less freedom.

Maybe I wouldn't?

Have you ever stopped to think that there is no such thing as free?

He’s being held in a maximum-security prison in solitary confinement. That is torture.

The report / article seem to be about his time before that.