Abuses show Assange case was never about law

Might not extradite for political crimes, but they straight up let CIA kidnap people from their soil. If Assange was returned to Sweden, he'd be let out on 'house arrest' and he'd just dissapear into the dark one night.

The guy ran and seeked asylum because he feared he will 'be made an example of' by USA. He sat in that tiny room for 6 years while US actors were working hard to smear him as a rapist and Russian puppet, while insinuating that everyone who claims USA is targeting Assange, or that there are indictments just waiting for his arrest is a conspiracy theorist.

The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by Ecuador to USA.

In my opinion, Assange was proven right.

>This is the new attack vector of the left

Et-tu brute?

In any case, an actual response to the idea of an ad hominem attack:

Reputation matters, so does context, and words do not stand alone. When taking in speech, it is important to understand the motives of the speaker, to be aware of their level of credibility. This isn't anything new or special, I learned it in high school history. People are biased, and you need to be aware of those biases when evaluating their speech.

Some examples: 1) If someone tells you, "Come in, I'd like to have you for dinner", there's a difference if that person is your father-in-law or Jeffrey Dahmer. 2) If someone tells you that some person X should be freed from charges, there's a difference if it's coming from that person's lawyer, or from the victim of the alleged crimes. 3) If you're about to cross a bridge, and one person says it's not safe to cross, and a second says it is, it makes a difference which one of the two is a structural engineer.

In the case of this particular article, I began to read it and came across several statements that were attempting to gloss over or ignore reported facts. At this point, I wanted to know if it was the result of sloppy reporting (maybe this was some personal rant), or perhaps part of a structured agenda, which is when I started to research the author. I found out that the author is a regular columnist for a company run by a known funder of racist hate groups that itself funds racist and hate speech, with poor journalistic practices.

I personally believe that we have a choice in how we earn a living (google death star contractors), but even if you don't, I think it's only fair to the reader to be aware of the writer's biases.

According to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, who just visited Assange [1], he has fallen gravely ill and shows all the signs of prolonged psychological torture.

Apparently at first he assumed Assange was just a good actor, but after visiting him it had become clear to him and the medical experts with him that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture, the likes of which (psychological, not physical) he has not seen in 20 years.

He's been giving numerous interviews about the matter and says that extradition to the US should be ruled out at all costs and that he has very real fears for Assange's health and for the probable violation of his human rights.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-sy...

Yes, and he appears to harbor a grudge against the Guardian, which you can see by the number of inflammatory articles tagged Guardian on his blog.

While it's quite possible that among all news sources, Jonathan Cook seems to have worked for the one horrific news source in the world, and is doing us a service by constantly exposing their acts, Occam's razor would suggest otherwise.

I've read a sampling of his articles, and he seems to be either an extremist, or someone who wishes to profit by appearing to be one. His posts seem mostly to be lacking a bit in rational discourse (with gems like "As far I can tell, none of the facts in the Guardian’s story is untrue. But that does not stop it from being a blatant lie"), and without much diversity in subject.