
Julian Assange's health in 'dangerous' condition, say doctors - eplanit
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/24/julian-assanges-health-in-dangerous-condition-say-doctors
======
rebuilder
It seems Assange's enemies win, whether he's in the embassy or in custody of
some state hostile to him. He's becoming harder and harder to trust given the
mental stress he must be under. It's not very difficult to imagine him being
persuaded to support some agenda, as long as it's hostile to his enemies,
while before all this, he at least had a fairly believable aura of
indiscriminating antiauthoritarianism.

~~~
IntronExon
He really seems like his own worst enemy, not in the least because his claims
are at odds with his behavior. I also don’t really buy that he’s avoiding
Swedish justice out of fear that the Americans will get him. That seems
especially unlikely with Trump in office, given that they seem more or less
aligned.

He just seems to be an egotist and a bit of a scumbag, who says one thing and
does another.

~~~
rurban
It's only the US and british governments which are after him currently.
Publishing annoying state secrets doesn't go well with them.

~~~
lucozade
The British government are after him because, after he was allowed to enter
the country and having gone through due process, his European arrest warrant
was upheld and he absconded. That has nothing to do with state secrets and, so
far, the US haven't asked for him to be extradicted.

As the US has the concept of a closed warrant,it's not currently possible to
know if he's wanted by them. It's not exactly inconceivable.

------
BoiledCabbage
> it is our professional opinion that his continued confinement is dangerous
> physically and mentally to him and a clear infringement of his human right
> to healthcare.”

Human right to healthcare!!

It's amazing (and saddening) how jarring that phrase sounds to American ears.
One day maybe it will be believed here.

~~~
MR4D
The American view of human rights is that your fundamental rights are endowed
by your creator, and not given to you by man. In other words, no person is
needed to provide a right to you. So, for example, free speech is yours -
nobody needs to give it to you.

For healthcare, if you were to have a right to it, then someone would have to
be there to provide it. Logically, at some point, a person could be forced
(presumably by a government) to provide it to you. This is contradicting the
principle set above (and you are therefore violating THAT person's rights).

So when Americans are criticized for not considering the internet or
healthcare or other things as a "right", that is the reason.

You don't have to agree with it, but the fundamental rights upon which the
country was founded come from this principle.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
> The American view of human rights is that your fundamental rights are
> endowed by your creator, and not given to you by man. In other words, no
> person is needed to provide a right to you.

I'm not arguing that you are necessarily wrong, but I am arguing that your
point and the actual execution of our government are contradictory.

Notable contradictions to the above, the 2nd, 18th & 21st amendments. Let's go
with the 2nd since is wonderfully controversial. Via the above definition and
a loose modern interpretation of modern state of the law: People have the
right to own guns. The government doesn't have the right to stop it.

But relying on the quoted above, and if we're discussing rights given via a
creator, and not rights given by another man, there is no constitutional right
to be able to buy a gun. A person can own a gun, and create a guy and form a
militia of gun owners, but the government is well within it's rights to ban
the sale of all guns in the country without any violation of the 2nd.

Now we're all reasonable people here, and know that's not the contemporary
interpretation. And no-one (certainly least me) is arguing that it should be.
But what it does point out that that we can't use the concept of "rights given
by a creator" as a necessary criteria for supporting or judging contemporary
interpretation of rights and law. Not that it hasn't happened.

So again I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that it's a
contradictory argument against healthcare. If we say we cut out healthcare for
that reason, then we also have to also cut out everything that has the same
lacking reason.

------
mikevp
So, Eric Rudolph (terrorist bomber of the Atlanta Olympics, among other places
he set bombs) hiding out in the woods, if he needs medical care for snake bite
or something (the snake died) should get a "Don't arrest me, I'm just coming
in for medical care" pass?

I'm not seeing it.

------
Analemma_
Assange's supporters continue to play disingenuous word games with
"imprisoned" and "confined". Assange is not being imprisoned. He can leave the
embassy and exercise his right to medical care any time he likes. What he
doesn't have is the "right to not be arrested", because nobody has that right.

Edit: reworded slightly

~~~
ftrway
Diplomats have that right.

~~~
evgen
And he is not a diplomat, nor does he have any recognized diplomatic immunity,
so the point is moot.

~~~
ravitation
What? No, it's not. He was responding to the claim that "nobody has that
right" with a clear example showing it's false...

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Which means that Analemma_ overstated the point slightly.

But the actual point wasn't whether _anybody_ had that right. The actual point
was, Assange does _not_ have that right. He is in self-imposed exile to avoid
arrest. The consequences of that are the consequences of his own choices.

How you feel about the situation is kind of a litmus test. Either you see
Assange as running from a rape charge (and running from it so determinedly
that it indicates a high likelihood of guilt), or you see him as running from
a determined effort to persecute him by stooges of the evil US government.
Whichever one you believe determines how you feel about his inability to leave
and get health care. Either you see it as "you made your bed, now lie in it",
or you see it as one more aspect of The Man hounding him.

------
Sangermaine
He should probably go seek medical attention, then, as he has been free to do
this entire time. He's not being held prisoner, his confinement is entirely
voluntary.

~~~
londons_explore
And if he were to wander out and catch an uber, he could probably escape and
evade capture.

