Thing I don't get about this case: the UK will refuse to extradite Assange because he will be tortured if they do that (ironically for exposing proof that the U

Thing I don't get about this case: the UK will refuse to extradite Assange because he will be tortured if they do that (ironically for exposing proof that the US tortures prisoners). And then the UK proceeded to torture him themselves (torture are the words "The Lancet" used [1], they cannot reasonably be dismissed as cranks) ... Illegally, by UK laws, and refuse to be held accountable for that in their own courts. Not that the judge even tries to demand reasonable treatment for Julian Assange from the prosecutor. UK laws are very clear on what should happen in this case: because of the government's treatment of Assange the case should be thrown out, because obviously the government has acted illegally against him on MANY occasions, they don't even give him his rights INSIDE THE COURTROOM (to talk to his lawyer privately and however much he wants without interference). The government DOES NOT have the right to sue somebody for anything once they have tortured him. Once they have lied about the case, they lose the right to sue. Once they refuse medical aid to a prisoner, they lose the right to sue. They have spied on his communication with his lawyer, again grounds for dismissal. They are obviously not feeding him right, which again would normally disqualify the government's case. Or at the very least, warrants a delay in the case with him decently taken care of until he is once again strong and fit enough to stand trial. Note that this is completely independent of the merit of the case itself: the QC in any normal case like this would never be allowed to make their case without fixing these issues first. Some of these reasons for dismissal the judge has seen happen right in front of him with his own eyes. Then there is the fact that the UK government does not have evidence against Assange on this crime (because he violated US law, not UK law), furthermore I do not see how it could -legally- obtain any such evidence. And yet this farce continues. The judge systematically refuses to face issues of fairness of the case and is obviously intimidated by the government. This shows one thing very clearly : the United Kingdom's government (the "executive") has ZERO intention of following through on their commitment to either follow their own laws, respect human rights and has no qualms whatsoever to threaten their own branches of government, when they want to violate laws. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...