Nils Melzer, an expert on torture working for the United nations human rights office, has visited Assange in prison and calls out problems.

“I am particularly alarmed at the recent announcement by the US Department of Justice of 17 new charges against Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act, which currently carry up to 175 years in prison. This may well result in a life sentence without parole, or possibly even the death penalty, if further charges were to be added in the future,” said Melzer, who was also following up on earlier concerns for Assange’s health.

[...]

“In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.”

[...]

“The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E

What do you think?

This world is strange. I don't particularly like Assange. I think he's overrated as far as being a hero and I know on a political and personal level I do not like him, but I certainly find him being locked up insane and completely unethical. I feel like a lot of things must be behind the scenes for this to make sense. I really don't get what he is being held responsible for because nothing he has done has led to the assassination of any politician, revolutionary act, or terrorism...as far as I am aware. Maybe there's a long game that I am not aware of and governments fear he is potentially going to start WW3? I really don't understand this one...

I am always baffled how "human rights" usually sides of with jailed criminals.

i thought that it was facebook ads that made trump win the election?

He played a role in hacking of government computers. That is illegal and thus he should go to jail.

(1) But still the US wants to extradite him. So why?

(2) Wikileaks denied having their sources from Russia. There is no proof to the contrary. Even if Russia hacked Clintons email, it doesn't mean they are the source for Wikileaks. But that's all besides the point. The point here is: the emails were real and the public should know about their content, as it was of interest for the public. Next we need Trumps email.

He didn't hack any governmental computers and it is not even his government, as he isn't american.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment-hacking-cfaa/amp

He is being brought up on hacking charges. He committed a crime.

From your linked article:

Is one failed attempt to crack a password really enough to embroil Assange in a felony hacking case? "For the CFAA, unfortunately yes," says Jeffrey Vagle, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor and current affiliate scholar at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. He points to a long history of using the overly expansive wording of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to hit hackers accused of even trivial acts with serious charges. "The fact that his involvement is de minimus isn't enough to stop an indictment, because the CFAA is just so broad."

So this is based on an clear overreach of the wording of the law.

"Is one failed attempt to crack a password really enough to embroil Assange in a felony hacking case?"

Yes, hacking government computers is a felony. It really is that simple.

Additionally, a failed attempt doesn't make something legal.  If I attempt to rob a bank...  because I failed I shouldn't be charged??? Yeah, no.

Assange knowingly committed a felony and got caught.  I really don't get the problem here.  Regardless if the punishment fits the crime, the law is there.  He knew about it and decided to ignore the consequences.  

I am not sure how much the contents of the emails really had on the election. But think about one thing: if the emails were released following a court order instead of leaked, would that be different? If yes why? I mean, the content has the same relevance. People focus way to much on the how the emails were released instead of the content themself. I don't think they were incredibly bad for Clinton, but they were another little thing among many other things that showed how bad a candidate Clinton really was.