I'm sorry, I think I'm missing your key point.  (You keep referencing
   back to an email, which I think I've read, and I think I've responded
   to the substance of, but if I haven't then please make your point.)
   The point I'm trying to make, is:
   1) The US/UK/etc justice system starts when you are taken into
   custody.  Up until that point, it's not responsible.  You choosing to
   run from the law isn't the law's fault; Assange can't blame the cops
   for him choosing to hide in an embassy for 7 years -- he picked that.
   It is super fair game to criticize the treatment of Chelsea Manning,
   who received 7 years in jail for her actions, and feels a decent model
   for how Snowden and Assange would have been tried if they had not run
   from the law all this time.  But them fleeing and doubling down on
   their accused behavior won't earn them any points at trial, so it's
   anybody's guess how it will eventually go when they are inexorably
   caught and tried.
   2) The US justice system works (ie, delivers fair justice) in hundreds
   of millions of super boring situations that we are choosing not to talk
   about now precisely because they are mundane.  This conversation is
   focusing on extreme edge and failure conditions, which by definition
   are unusual and bad.  This would be like indicting the medical
   profession to say "You should never go into a surgery room, because
   millions of people die there, and more people die in surgery rooms than
   out.  Furthermore, surgeons kill more people than serial murders and
   should all be executed."  You can keep highlighting small handfuls of
   problems -- and they are real problems, no doubt.  And the further you
   go back in history, the more horrific those problems get.  But in
   general, over time, things are getting better, and that's an important
   point not to be dismissed.
   3) I'm not sure what your actual proposal is.  You are saying what you
   don't like about the outcomes, but you aren't stating what change you
   would like in the process to get a different outcome.  You are strongly
   implying (but not stating outright) a bunch of contradictory positions:
   a. You don't think he's guilty of sexual assault and don't think he
   should go to trial for it, but you also acknowledge you don't know the
   evidence and aren't a judge.  So which is it?  Should his accusers get
   justice by him going to trial, or should he go free merely because you
   think they are liars (despite never meeting them or knowing anything
   about them)?  Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with an incredibly
   obvious statement: "Anyone who is accused of sexual assault should be
   investigated and tried according to the law, no matter who they are."
   b. You don't think he's guilty of anything, and don't think he should
   have even been charged, but also don't go so far as to say running from
   the law should be a valid tactic for avoiding a trial.  So which is
   it?  Should we as a rule reward people who attempt to flee with
   freedom?  Or should we as a rule keep pursuing them until there is a
   trial?  Or is he so special that he alone should be rewarded for
   running from a trial?  Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with the
   incredibly obvious statement: "Once there is a warrant for your arrest,
   justice is best served by bringing that person into trial; we should
   never give up attempting to bring them to trial, and evading arrest
   should not be rewarded with a lessor sentence."
   c. You are very concerned by *one witness* in a large, complex trial,
   claiming he falsified information to a newspaper.  But you aren't
   saying that newspapers are valid courtrooms.  So which is it?  Should
   we go to a court to figure out what is true or false, or should we
   basically take as truth _what a self proclaimed liar is claiming years
   later_?  You seem to be happy to trust him as being totally honest now,
   despite admitting that he was a liar in the past.  Why are you
   convinced he isn't just lying now to exonerate Assange?  Why  are you
   so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious statement:
   "Newspapers and social media are not the best venue for a trial; we
   should give everyone the assumption of innocence until proven guilty,
   but we should also figure out guilt or innocence in a trial."
   You are trying to have your cake and eat it too: to widely criticize
   our justice system, but without making any tangible suggestions on how
   it can be improved (even while strongly implying you believe a bunch of
   contradictory positions that make no sense).  It's wearying because you
   aren't stating a sufficiently clear rebuttal to really react to.  You
   are just complaining ambiguously that "the world isn't fair", without
   making any active contribution to make it more fair.
   This is our world.  It's your and my job to fix it.  But step one in
   that process is deciding what specifically to do.
   -david