
Assange in Court - k1m
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
======
pulse7
"Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is
requested is a political offense."

If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he
will not be extradited to China.

If an Australian journalist in UK is publishing American military secrets,
will he be extradited to America?

This is the question now...

~~~
threeseed
Many would argue that Assange isn't a journalist.

And so that also is a factor.

~~~
vermilingua
What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents
himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the
textbook definition of journalism to me.

~~~
threeseed
So the issue with Assange was that he never showed any "limitation of harm"
when he chose not to redact any of the content. It's a pretty core tenant of
journalism ethics.

Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in
front of a judge.

~~~
marcus_holmes
But the sort of pond scum that work for the British tabloids also never show
any restraint, and yet no-one questions that they are journalists.

No, it's the "just a blogger" thing - if you only publish on the internet and
not in print then your journalistic credentials will always be slightly
suspect.

(source: I ran a newspaper, and while 90% of our readers read our stories on
our website or FB page, according to our market research the fact that we
printed actual paper gave us way more credibility with our audience than
competitors who just published on the internet)

~~~
threeseed
Tabloids toe the line more so than other publications.

They would never publish classified material without clearing it first with
the UK government. And at minimum carefully redacting information that would
put people in harm's way.

~~~
roenxi
There seems to be a hypothesis nestled in there that the tabloids are run by
responsible, clear thinking individuals who are pretending to be uncivilised
boors but will drop the facade when confronted with an important issue.

What odds might be put on them actual being uncivilised boors who'll publish
anything that gets eyeballs?

More likely they wouldn't publish raw classified information because it is dry
and boring.

------
sschueller
There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever
be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1]

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-
parents...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents/do-
the-right-thing-family-of-uk-teen-killed-in-crash-tells-u-s-diplomats-wife-
idUSKBN1WT26R)

~~~
thefounder
Well is not the first time a US citizen kills an european one in an accident
and gets away with it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter)

~~~
Nicksil
Non-mobile:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter)

------
chippy
"The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning
to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State
Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do
with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election"

I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who
previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who are
very silent now.

~~~
pjc50
The Swedish case was a separate issue; he hid in the embassy until the clock
ran out on that. It's difficult to say how differently things would have gone
if he'd simply gone to Sweden, but I would have expected them to be less
likely to re-extradite than the UK.

It's perfectly possible for the US to be overreaching in its "national
security" prosecutions _and also_ for Assange to have sexually assaulted
someone in Sweden.

~~~
tomp
This is a lie.

"The clock ran out" only on some of the crimes he was accused of. Sweden
simply dropped the case (i.e. decided not to proceed with extradition request)
after he got out of the embassy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_assault_allegations)

 _> the questioning pertained only to the open investigation of "lesser degree
rape", whose statute of limitations is due to expire in 2020_

 _> Following Assange's 2019 arrest, the case was reopened under prosecutor
Eva-Marie Persson. In September 2019, she revealed that she had interviewed
seven witnesses, two of whom had not been previously heard, but had yet to
determine how to proceed in the case._

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It might be less inflammatory to say "this is incorrect" rather than "this is
a lie".

Or do you have reason to think that pjc50 is deliberately lying?

~~~
tomp
So many untruths ("lies") in this thread, I expect it to be full of shills. At
some point it gets really hard to attribute to incompetence, not malice...

------
enriquto
In 50 years, people will look in disgust and utter disbelief at our treatment
of Assange.

Or maybe this is too optimistic. Maybe our grandsons will indeed understand
us. They will understand us too well, and be ashamed of us.

~~~
rimliu
He will be forgotten in ten years. And for a good reason.

~~~
bufferoverflow
He absolutely will not be forgotten. He is a hero. Even now he has a wikipedia
article, multiple movies about him, tons of support from the people supporting
the freedom of information and those who are sick of the secretive bullshit
going on behind the curtains.

~~~
rimliu
one man's hero is another man's villain.

~~~
enriquto
And in either case, when they are relevant enough, they are not forgotten.

~~~
rimliu
But do you honestly believe he will be relevant enough in 10 years? No doubt
some will remember him, but I say way more people will know Snowden than
Assange in ten years.

~~~
enriquto
He was well known 10 years ago and he is well known today. By extrapolation,
it is natural to assume that he'll be also in 10 years.

------
kaolti
Funny to read through the comments going back and forth on definitions of
journalism and the details of extradition treaties.

Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are
used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really.

If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or
rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable,
but that's reality.

~~~
friendlybus
The difference might be life in prison and being able to see your kids in
visits vs being killed on the spot in less civilized countries.

~~~
ldarby
Did you not read the article? He is effectively being killed on the spot, just
a bit more slowly than less civilized countries.

------
peltier
>Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not
at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where
we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility
used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum
security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the
public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to
evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in pulic
again again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are
reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at
Belmarsh.

Its perverse

------
peltier
Following the WikiLeaks story from its early days until today leave me
incredibly demoralized and to be frank, angry. If I where to list the amount
of injustices WikiLeaks and those who have associated with them have suffered,
I would sit here all night, and I strongly suspect that is by intelligent
design.

This story, if the end of it is as it seems, it will mark a shift in the
perceived ideals of the "free world".

~~~
BLKNSLVR
It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of
China.

And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed.

(Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)

~~~
whamlastxmas
The US having a corrupt and unaccountable elite class of politicians is not
equivalent to China having a single dictator whose whims are law

~~~
knocte
It is not equivalent, it is worse, because in the west people have a false
sense of security.

------
Escapado
If even a quarter of this went down as described in the article this is
seriously fucked up beyond measure.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I have no information about whether it went down that way or not. All I know
is that this article set of my "extremely biased source" warnings quite
strongly.

Is there any coverage of this in the mainstream press? Any verification of any
of the content of this article? Anything?

Or are we getting all riled up because one person wrote an article with the
intent of riling people up?

As I said, I don't know. I would welcome other sources.

------
sudoaza
This exposes the sham that is western "democracy". Everything is allowed to
persecute those who oppose the status quo. The so called freedom they claim
for themselves when they attack Russia, China or Venezuela in the corporate
media is a right reserved for those who have money and who submit to the
ruling class.

~~~
ramblerman
> This exposes the sham that is western "democracy".

Comparing western democracy to Venezuela is facetious at best, but I agree
it's a sham. Just for entirely different reasons. If people really cared about
this issue, then western democracy still has checks and balances for the
people to make change.

The problem is Assange has long become a boring item in the news cycle, and we
as a people in that democracy just don't care enough anymore.

The narrative of him being a rapist, and letting it simmer for enough years,
was very effective.

------
brbrodude
An injustice commited to one is a threat made to all. This is deffinitely a
stain and an open bleeding wound on western powers history and supposed
values/principles, this wound will only tend to grow. Sadly it's one those
events with a dimension so large that it can go unnoticed because of how big
it is, it is an Omen. Julian Assange is the first nonviolent, information
activist made a political enemy targeted and persecuted in global scale. He's
already being imprisioned and tortured for years without a fair trial and with
his human rights denied. God bless him!

------
FireBeyond
I think it is important to look at this with the lens of objectivity:

Accusations that Assange is actively being not just harassed but outright
tortured to the point where he "might not survive the proceedings" in jail...

... to claims that "members of the US Government" were there and "controlling
procedures"

and claims that the judge had been instructed what to say:

> possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her
> to agree with

Apropos of anything else:

> Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for
> the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed.

> Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might
> have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an
> absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved.

As far as I can tell the hearing date is over four months away.

These are all very large claims and should be considered within the spectrum
of someone who is as equally friendly towards Assange as he claims the state
is against him.

~~~
mmjaa
>objectivity

+

>considered within the spectrum

What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is
clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents?

Or to open the door for the, very definite Assange-haters, to have a way
around the argument that Assange is not getting a fair trial, that this case
is a _total farce_ , and that anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-
pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'?

~~~
FireBeyond
One example:

Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's
health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail.

Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with
his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would
entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his
"ability to understand" \- his demeanor as being 'flat' and 'slow' and
'confused'), and instead apparently a foregone conclusion to assume that he is
being physically and mentally subjected to "extreme torture".

> anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is
> 'an enemy of the West'?

Please. You'd be very much mistaken to think I have -any- sympathy for the
"military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex", as even a cursory reading of my
comments on issues of health insurance in the US, or military interventions
would show.

Believe it or not, it is possible to think that Assange has committed multiple
crimes for less than noble reasons in amongst the good he has done, without
being an agent for the state, deep or otherwise.

~~~
mmjaa
Innocent until proven guilty.

But in the meantime: medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend
himself.

"Concern for his mental health" is just an excuse for "medically lobotomized".

~~~
oliwarner
> Innocent until proven guilty

And for that to hold, you have to let him be tried. Justice isn't automatic.

But people (maybe not you) seem far too quick to start muddying up the due
process. It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that.

From here, it seems perfectly plausible that he _actively helped_ Manning
leak. If the US have evidence to that end, they have a case. Can we just let
that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain?

~~~
roenxi
> It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that.

It depends what they find him guilty of and what the sentence is. It is
unacceptable to have someone on trial for openly telling the truth about what
a foreign country is doing.

He went into the Ecuadorian embassy saying that the Swedish case against him
was basically trumped up and that he was going to be extradited to the United
States. His justification for staying in the embassy on the basis that he
would be extradited to the US if he walked out. His excuses were dismissed by
critics as unconvincing. He is now out of the embassy and, surprisingly,
appears to be going through an extradition process to the US.

The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a
process crime than doing anything material. Australians in Europe cannot be
reasonably held subject to US laws related to classified documents. And how
materially he helped Manning is a very open question. Maybe the US government
is going to have something convincing but the odds are great it is some word
game that they are going to try and nail him with.

> Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here
> is a Bond villain?

If the US government is going to treat Assange the way they treat other non-
US-citizens they don't like then by the time the case is heard it will be too
late.

~~~
FireBeyond
> The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a
> process crime than doing anything material.

Allegedly actively assisting a US military member to a) crack other military
passwords, and b) work with them on covering said attempts is a mere "flimsy
pretext, [not] material"?

~~~
roenxi
Maybe you feel that is worth thousands to millions of dollars spent hunting
down a man for 10 years. I doubt Assange would have been aware of that sort of
technicality and it is highly likely that something else would have been
fabricated if they didn't have that as an excuse.

From memory he didn't even succeed on the password front. The 'crime' here is
an incidental non-issue compared to why the US has been hounding him.

~~~
FireBeyond
> I doubt Assange would have been aware of that sort of technicality

Wait, elsewhere, and repeatedly, it's been noted just how intelligent Assange
is, and (hence) how out of character the disheveled, slow person who appeared
in court is. And I have zero doubt - he has repeatedly showed in interviews
that for whatever potential personality flaws he may have, or personal opinion
of him, he is, indeed, very well educated, intelligent, and smart.

So this? Fails the smell test. Fails the reasonable person test.

Someone as intelligent that - you believe it is "doubt[ful]" that he would be
aware that aiding an active US military personnel in cracking passwords for
accounts on classified systems, and encouraging them to use/try other
credentials for covering tracks on the access of classified documents and
their removal from external systems... it's doubtful that he would realize
that that was possibly going to be viewed as a serious crime by the US?

I don't buy _that_ for a moment - throughout those chat logs there is multiple
references to covering tracks, to covering bases on how to act, react, what to
say or do when questioned, etc. - that is not someone who is blissfully
unaware of the crime which they are (allegedly) committing, or aiding and
abetting.

------
henearkr
How is it possible there is not yet a huge mob gathering near the court and
threatening to burn everything. Because, this is literally revolting. How many
people support that? And how many people are disgusted by that? Would nobody
regret doing nothing?

~~~
LandR
I doubt most people care.

Outside of a few friends, I doubt most people I know know that this is 1)
going on and 2) who Assange even is.

~~~
vintermann
It's ten years since he was arrested (just weeks after the Cablegate release -
but they'll have you believe that was a complete coincidence).

Kids who were 8 years old at the time can vote now.

It makes you wonder what the world would have looked like, had Wikileaks not
been shattered.

It's not just Assange. Arjen Kamphuis disappeared without a trace on a trip in
Norway. Ola Bini is jail in Ecuador. Aaron Swartz and James Dolan, who worked
on SecureDrop and probably on Wikileaks' own submission system, both committed
suicide.

State propaganda ops from all sides rushed in to fill the void after Wikileaks
was crippled.

~~~
whamlastxmas
Chelsea Manning is in jail yet again because they're forcing her to testify
again and she's refusing

------
antihero
Bear in mind that with Lauri Love, while the case was lost in 2016 and a judge
ruled that he could be extradited, it then went to the high court and was
overturned two years later.

~~~
skratchpixels
Lauri Love is a British national while Assange is a Australian national. Would
the nationality of the defendant have an impact on the Westminster
Magistrates' Court's decision?

~~~
matthewheath
In theory, no. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The nationality of
the subject isn't a factor that would have a particular bearing either way.
The courts are supposed to look at where it makes sense to try the crime,
rather than the nationality of the offender.

In this case, most of the evidence is presumably in the United States so it
doesn't make sense for the trial to happen in the United Kingdom, assuming the
United Kingdom has the relevant offence too (I haven't looked it up, but I
presume it would be breaching the Official Secrets Act or something along
those lines).

Obviously, it is more persuasive to have a British national tried at home
(especially with comparative legal systems, e.g. the offence exists in both
countries) rather than a foreign judicial system. The same cannot be said for
a foreign national, especially if the foreign prosecuting authority will have
a much stronger case built up than a domestic prosecuting authority could
achieve.

------
BLKNSLVR
This doesn't bode well for any inkling Snowden may have of returning to the US
in a timeframe that doesn't include some kind of revolutionary change of
government.

------
thepete2
Can someone explain to me why there is apparently no footage of this? Aren't
court hearings supposed to be public or was filming simply not allowed?

~~~
matthewheath
It is illegal to record proceedings in a court within the UK under S41 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1925 (no photography or drawings) and S9 of the Contempt
of Court Act 1981 (no sound recordings or public playing of recordings).

Courts may choose to televise their own proceedings (for example, the Supreme
Court in the UK televises its hearings) but they are not obliged to. This
happens under S32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

The hearing was public (most court hearings are public): you could go and sit
in the public gallery if you so wished (space permitting), but you are not
allowed to film or record the proceedings without the permission of the court.

~~~
ur-whale
Wow. I didn't know that. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I thought England self-styled itself a "democracy", but it looks like putting
together kangaroo courts is ridiculously easy over there.

~~~
matthewheath
Respectfully, I disagree. This case was heard by a magistrate, the "Tier 1" of
the judicial system. There are multiple levels of appeal available after the
initial hearing is concluded.

Magistrates in this scenario (dealing with extradition matters) sit alone so
yes, it is theoretically possible to have a "kangaroo court" at first
instance, however if the judge was unreasonable or erred in law or fact, it
would be swiftly corrected by the High Court (Queen's Bench Division -
Criminal) or the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

These two courts sit as a panel. The High Court typically has three judges on
the bench, while the Supreme Court has 11. It is theoretically easy to
influence a single judge; it is much harder to inappropriately influence three
or 11 to get a majority verdict in your favour.

There are no suggestions that the judge here was improperly influenced and if
they were, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Office for
Judicial Conduct. It goes without saying that the case would also be ruled a
mistrial and another judge would handle it all over again.

As a future British lawyer, I don't see what filming the proceedings would
bring to the judicial system in terms of legitimacy.

Court transcripts are publicly available, anyone can come to the hearings
(unless it's a closed session which is rare) and report on the events. Justice
is seen to be done, and filming appears largely inappropriate for the vast
majority of cases proceeding through the judicial system in my opinion.

------
tov_objorkin
Empire nailing Assange to the cross. Take your seats, enjoy the show...

------
pvaldes
No good action goes unpunished.

Public reading group of the wikileaks documents, anyone?

------
turblety
[deleted]

~~~
Ardren
> "When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a
> person facing extradition.

> "Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application
> for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not
> surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.

Edit: In response to your edit, he is being held for trial, and is a huge
flight risk. 𝚈̶𝚘̶𝚞̶ ̶𝚠̶𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚎̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚘̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚌̶𝚔̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚏̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶
̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚜̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚘̶𝚟̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚢̶ ̶𝚊̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚌̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚍̶𝚞̶𝚕̶𝚎̶,̶
̶𝚘̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶𝚛̶𝚠̶𝚒̶𝚜̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚄̶𝚂̶ ̶𝙲̶𝚘̶𝚗̶𝚜̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚝̶𝚞̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚘̶𝚗̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚊̶𝚢̶𝚜̶
̶"̶𝙴̶𝚡̶𝚌̶𝚎̶𝚜̶𝚜̶𝚒̶𝚟̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚜̶𝚑̶𝚊̶𝚕̶𝚕̶ ̶𝚗̶𝚘̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚎̶
̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚚̶𝚞̶𝚒̶𝚛̶𝚎̶𝚍̶"̶.̶

> I would be greatly ashamed if we imprison someone for more than a couple of
> days without any sentence/verdict/ruling/etc.

How long do you think trials last?

~~~
pjc50
> he is being held for trial, and is a huge flight risk. You would need to
> check if there he is covered by a bail schedule, otherwise the US
> Constitution says "Excessive bail shall not be required".

Point of information: he is being held in the UK and therefore what the US
constitution says is irrelevant. He will be covered by the Bail Act.
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63)

~~~
Ardren
Ah of course, I wasn't thinking straight

------
kombucha11
I know no one wants to hear this but Assange wouldn't be in the mess if he had
conducted his operation more intelligently. Others have done similar actions
and faced no repercussion. This is the fault of Assange's hubris and lack of
attention. I used to be a huge Assange and Wikileaks supporter but I haven't
been for quite some time. He/they made serious but entirely avoidable
mistakes.

Edit: Fwiw I support whistleblowers and government transparency and the end to
rampant unconstitutional surveillance overreach but I simply couldn't support
Assange after finding that he crossed a known ethical line with the inducement
and material support. And Chelsea Manning should've never went to jail. Shes
the true whistleblower in all of this. And Adrian Lamo and Assange are the
ones that made serious yet avoidable mistakes. He simply should've acted as a
carrier/news organization but he/they didn't do that. That and the support
from Russia and eagerness to influence the election at all costs while
maintaining impartiality is laughable. Maybe Assange could've been a force for
good if he hadn't taken sides.

------
henearkr
But is it possible that actually the judge is prepared to deny the
extradition, and cannot say anything just yet because of the secret duty? If
she thinks all of that is torture for Assange, maybe she is right to want it
to end as soon as possible, especially if she already has taken her decision.

~~~
mnw21cam
That isn't the case. This ruling was made by a magistrate, who only deals with
lower cases and administration for bigger cases. The actual extradition case
will be heard by a different person.

~~~
pmyteh
Magistrates actually handle all extradition cases at first instance. Because
it's such a specialist area of law, they're all handled by a single
magistrates court (Westminster) with a set of specially experienced
magistrates.

Appeals go to the Administrative Court list of the High Court, though, which
is potentially a panel of very senior judges indeed.

------
krilly
I know of Craig Murray through local politics. He is a conspiracy theorist and
a mentalist. Can't believe I'm seeing his blog on HN

------
mmjaa
This is an atrocious, heinous crime being committed in front of all of us, and
we _should_ be rioting in the streets. This can happen to _any of us now_ \-
nobody is safe from torture by the state.

This is the end of civilized society in the West, people.

Where Julian Assange goes, so go we.

~~~
tomp
Unfortunately, life will go on, just like after Epstein "suicided" himself and
all the media just silently dropped his case.

------
newnewpdro
It's possible Assange hasn't been sleeping enough for _years_ due to the
stress of his situation. The effects of that might resemble those of torture
and debilitating drugs.

Just something to consider...

~~~
maze-le
Consider this: Sleep deprivation is torture. Anyone being held in a condition
like this and not getting serious medical attention -- psychological and
physiological -- is also torture. The fact that after several months outside
the confines of the embassy-cell, he is still in a condition that resembles
torture victims is evidence enough of that. It's also very convenient that it
looks like this is self-inflicted and "no one can do anything huh?". Any
person other than him would be hospitalized immediately.

~~~
newnewpdro
I'm inclined to agree with you.

But that's not the first thing which came to my mind in reading TFA when the
author referenced torture and drugs.

Reading the description of Assange's incoherent ramblings reminded me of a
relative who suffered from extreme sleep apnea for over a decade, where he
basically would never sleep for more than a few minutes before choking himself
awake. He became pretty incoherent and insane, and his machismo pride
prevented him from seeking treatment for it.

I don't think I'd be sleeping well in Assange's shoes.

------
adv0r
Holy crap, HN mods you should edit this title and make it more sensational,
like the most posts on HN. I feel this post is not receiving the attention it
deserves

