What's good for goose Rezaian not good for gander Assange

Remember when US officials and presidential candidates were screaming for the release of Washington Post journalist James Rezaian, being arbitrarily held by Iran since July, 2014, on trumped up espionage charges? He was released last month as part of the thaw between the US and Iran, helped in part, by demands from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which called for Rezaian's release. Western officials lauded the UN's efforts on behalf of Rezaian, something one would surmise should apply to all persons suffering unlawful, inhumane and arbitrary detention. 

Alas, UK Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond decried the UN's latest demand for release of a UK political prisoner, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, as "a ridicules thing". Unlike Rezaian who only endured arbitrary detention for 18 months, Assange is in his 44th month of forced detention in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The Brits, conspiring with the US and Sweden, want Assange whisked to the US for likely imprisonment for being, like Rezaian, a good journalist. What's the difference you might inquire? Whereas Rezaian was merely an employee of the anti Iran and neocon Washington Post, Assange was releasing documents shedding light on our criminal war in Afghanistan, something that surely needs to see the light of day. That upsets Uncle Sam no end, even to the point where he and his British poodle will denigrate a UN institution, which must be upheld even when inconvenient if we want to maintain its worldwide credibility. Besides the Brits squandering 13 million pounds watching for Assange to risk arrest for sneaking a badly needed whiff of fresh air, all three nations; the US, UK and Sweden besmirch their claims to represent freedom, democracy and decency. They still can't comprehend: what's good for James Rezaian, is good for Julian Assange.