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.